AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure
The appellants dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have fifed this appeal seeking enhancement. The facts relevant for the purpose of the appeal are as under:
Habibulla Shariff (the deceased) was travelling in a goods vehicle bearing Rag.No. KA-02-C-8905 along with goods on NH-48 B.M.road, near Gowagere Village and at that time the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No. KA-01-F-7899 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the goods vehicle and Habibulla Shariff sustained severe injuries and died on the spot The petitioners being the wife, children and father of the deceased Habibulla Shariff have claimed compensation for loss of dependency and also under conventional heads.
The respondent contested the petition before the Tribunal. During enquiry appellant No. 1 was examined as PW. 1 and one witness PW. 2 and in evidence the documents Exs. P.1 to 11 were marked. The respondent examined one C.G.Boregowda as RW.1.
The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of the material on record held that actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and granted compensation of Rs. 4,33,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation present appeal is filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is:-
Whether the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation? If so, to what extant?
The appellants have produced Ex. P.8-licence issued by the APMC and Ex. P.11 - receipts regarding the transaction of the vegetables. It is their case that the deceased was a vegetable venior in APMC market and they requested the Tribunal to consider his income at Rs. 10,000/- per month and to award the compensation.
Apart from the version of PW. 1 and documents Exs. P.8 and P.11, there is no other material on record to assess the income of the deceased.. So, it is only a guesswork that has to be done. The Tribunal after considering the said material has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. But taking into considering the fact that the deceased was a vegetable vendor, I think it would be Just and proper to consider the income at Rs. 4,250/- par month. If that is once accepted the loss of dependency would be as under; - Rs. 3,188/- (3/4 of the income) x 12x 15
- Rs. 5,73,840/-
In addition to the compensation awarded towards loss of earning capacity, the appellant are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards conventional heads. Thereby, the net compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs. 6,13,840/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment Hence, I answer the point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part, modifying the award passed by the Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 6,13,840/- with interest a 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment.
So far as the apportionment of the compensation is concerned, the order passed by the Tribunal shall be considered proportionately.