AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar
This appeal by the dependants of one Ishwarappa Mahindrakar who was traveling in Tum Tum vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-29/9682 from Nidagundi to Almatti as fare paying passenger and when the vehicle was passing near Parvati Katta Bridge, it was hit by motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-30/J-1930. The driver of the Tum Tum lost control of the vehicle due to the impact, got turtled and resulted in extensive injuries to deceased person and others. The injured person though was shifted to the hospital after having received initial attention and treatment at place of the accident to Primary Health Centre, Nidagundi due to the severe type of the injuries the person succumbed while he was receiving treatment. In the wake of the death of their breadwinner, kith and kin - the mother, wife and daughter of the deceased had filed claim petition before the Tribunal. The deceased was working as First Division Assistant in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, Almatti and drawing salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month. Due to his death, the dependants had lost their support and therefore filed the claim petition.
The deceased person was aged about 54 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal on registering in MVC No. 1300/2009 at the instance of the appellants 1 to 3 issued notice to the owner of the Tum Tum vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle - Oriental Insurance Company Limited and also the owner of the two wheeler.
The matter was contested and ultimately the Tribunal having framed following issues:
Whether petitioners prove that, deceased Iswarappa Mahindrakar sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 18.06.2009 at 19:30 hours on Nidagundi-Almatti Road, near Parvati Katta Bridge and died at the Hospital due to rash and negligent driving of Tum Tum Auto bearing Reg. No. KA-29/9682, by its driver?
Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is a quantum and from whom?
What order or award?
answered Issue No. 1 partly in the affirmative, quantified quantum of compensation payable to the claimants at a sum of Rs. 13,35,596/- comprised as under:
Loss of dependency
: Rs. 13,00,596/-
Loss of Consortium
: Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of love and affection
: Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of expectancy of life
: Rs. 10,000/-
Funeral expenses
: Rs. 5,000/-
Total
: Rs. 13,35,596/-
and allowed the claim petition to this extent.
It is aggrieved by this quantification, the claimants are in appeal, contending that it is on the lower side; that there was scope for higher determination under several heads etc.
There is a delay of 149 days in preferring this appeal and an application seeking for condonation of delay is also filed.
Appearing on behalf of the appellant, submission of learned counsel is that the Tribunal has committed an error in quantifying the compensation amount under the heads loss of expectancy of life'', loss of love and affection'' and ''funeral expenses'' which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- and also submits deduction towards personal expenses is on the higher side at one-third and on the other hand as per the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, should have been one-tenth of the income of the deceased etc.
The income of the deceased has been taken at the amount claimed and the deceased also being more than 50 years, it cannot be said that loss of dependency has been quantified erroneously. Insofar as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, we find in this case no correction is required as the case before the Supreme Court was one where the income was low and the dependents were more. Such is not situation in the present case. I do not find even the quantification under the head loss of love and affection'' is on the lower side which are as indicated above.
Even argument that under the head loss of expectancy of life'' awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be on the lower side. Though it is urged Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses is on the lower side, there cannot be any computation on arithmetic precision in such matters and the amount of guess work and estimation will have to be taken. Overall, I do not find any scope for further enhancement of the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in any significant way. It is therefore, I do not find any need to interference with the judgment and award by the Tribunal and accordingly application for condonation of delay and appeal are dismissed.