AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—One Bhagyalaxmi, is the deceased in MVC No. 618/96. In the accident Bhagyalaxmi died and her uncle sustained personal injuries. The parents are the petitioners of the deceased Bhagyalaxmi. Petitioners are not examined. But the uncle of the deceased has given evidence in support of the petitioners case. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not examined.
Neither the provisions of order 18 of CPC nor the Rules of evidence insist that a party to the proceeding should necessarily be examined. Non-examination of a party is not fatal to the case. The party without examining himself can prove his case by examining any witnesses who has personal knowledge of the facts and competent to testify. The Court upon such evidence can grant relief to the party. But, if the witness examined is not competent to depose to the facts, perhaps in such a situation, the Court will draw an adverse inference and the party runs the risk of dismissal of the case for his non-examination.
In the instant case, the uncle who has testified on behalf of the petitioners cannot be called an incompetent witness to testify to the material facts nor can be said that the witness has no personal knowledge of the facts. Therefore, the dismissal on the ground of non-examination of petitioners is bad in law.
The deceased is aged about 19 years. The Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Puttamma and Anr. v. D.V. Krishnappa and Anr. ILR 1999 KAR. 69 has held that in case of a non-earning member, the minimum compensation payable is Rs. 150000/-. In this case, the deceased has the capacity and potential to earn. Therefore, the petitioners to be awarded a minimum compensation of Rs. 150000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till payment.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.