AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. The legal representatives of one O. Thippeswamy have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 78/2009, dated 01.01.2011 by the MACT at Challakere.
From the material on record, it is not in dispute that Thippeswamy died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 11.09.2008, when he and his friends proceeded to Bangalore to attend a meeting of Rastraiya Uddyoga Kathari on the previous day. On the next day i.e., on 11.9.2008 when they were on Kasturba Road at Siddalingaiah Circle, at that time, a motor cycle bearing No. KA-21/J-1623 came from behind and dashed against Thippeswamy. As a result of the injury sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore for treatment, but he did not survive. His legal representatives filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Thippeswamy.
The claim petition was contested by the respondent before the tribunal. On the basis of the evidence on record, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with said award, the claimants are in appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company and perused the materials on record.
Though it has been pleaded and deposed that the deceased Thippeswamy was a project officer in H.R.F.D.L. at Challakere which was under the Ne-sa Samsthe Bangalore and he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and he was preparing project reports for Swayyumseva Samstha and getting Rs. 2,000/- per month, thereby a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month, no corroborative evidence in that regard has been produced either by examining any other witnesses or by producing any document in that regard. Under the circumstances, the notional income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- which awarded compensation on the head of loss of dependency at Rs. 3,60,000/-. In my view the assessment of notional income is not in accordance with the nature of the work that was being performed by the deceased. However, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, it is difficult to assess the notional income of the deceased in realistic terms.
Under the circumstances, keeping in view the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the tribunal to reassess the compensation on the head of loss of dependency as well as the various other heads by giving an opportunity to the appellants herein to let in further evidence in this regard. If additional evidence is let in by the appellants on the earning of the deceased, then the same shall be taken into consideration by the tribunal and reassessed compensation shall be awarded in accordance with law. Hence the judgment and award of the tribunal is set aside only on the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal. The matter is remanded to the tribunal to permit the parties to let in evidence only on the issue of additional compensation to be awarded to the Legal representatives of the deceased Thippeswamy and not on any other issue. It is needless to observe that the setting aside of the judgment and award only on the quantum of compensation is without prejudice to the compensation amount that may have been already received by the claimants. The object of remand is to enable the claimants to produce relevant corroborative evidence with reference to the monthly income of the deceased as this court is not in a position to assess the real monthly income of the deceased in the absence of corroborative evidence even after perusing the evidence of the claimants.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.