AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
With concept of learned counsel on both sides, appeal is taken up for final hearing. Claimant before the MACT is the appellant The claim made before the MACT u/s 166 of MV Act, 1988 related to death of one Mubarak, aged about 18 years and a motor mechanic. He sustained fetal injuries in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 16.04.2007, on account of rash and negligent driving and actionable negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-18-7707, which had insurance coverage from the third respondent The claim petition was not contested by the first respondent - driver, but was contested by the second and third respondents i.e., owner and insurer respectively, of the offending vehicle. Issues having been framed, claimant deposed as PW.1 and stated that her deceased son was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. Respondents did not examine any witness. Insurance policy was marked as Ex.R-1.
MACT, considering the evidence has held that the deceased was aged about 18 years, his income was Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and he was contributing Rs. 1,500/- to his mother. By applying multiplier of 15, MACT has arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,70,000/-. It has awarded Rs. 28,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, MACT has determined the compensation payable at Rs. 2,98,000/-, awarded the sum with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till date of deposit.
Sri. Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, learned Advocate for the appellant contended that, despite credible evidence produced with regard to the avocation and income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- p.m., Tribunal has committed error in taking the income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and deducting half there from towards his personal and living expenses and in determining the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,70,000/-, Learned counsel further contended that the sum awarded under the conventional heads is also on lower side and that there is no just and reasonable award passed by the MACT.
Sri. C.R. Ravishankar, learned Advocate for the insurance company, on the other hand would argue that the MACT has passed a just and reasonable award and that, there is no case made out for enhancement of compensation.
The award passed by the MACT having not been questioned by the respondents, only point for consideration is, ''whether the MACT has passed a just and reasonable award?''
From the evidence of PW.1, it; is clear that the deceased was aged about 16 years and was working as a Mechanic. However, his income has not been established by producing credible evidence. Employer has not been examined nor any salary certificate issued by the employer is produced. However, the deceased being an young and able bodied person, the accident having taken place on 16.04.2007 can be expected to earn Rs. 4,000/- p.m. He being a bachelor, half of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, the balance i.e., Rs. 2,000/- p.m. is the loss of dependency as far as claimant-appellant is concerned. The Tribunal is justified in applying multiplier of 15, taking the age of the claimant as 40 years, since deceased was 18 years. Thus, the sum which should have been awarded under the head loss of dependency'' is Rs. 3,60,000/-. To the said sum, there ought to have been addition of Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, Tribunal has not correctly assessed the loss and the award passed by it cannot be termed either just or reasonable.
In the result, appeal is allowed in part and impugned judgment and award is modified. Compensation payable by the respondents is determined at Rs. 3,90.000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till date of deposit.
Two months time is allowed for the respondents to deposit the balance amount in the MACT. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal to pass order re: investment and disbursement. No order as to costs. Two weeks time a allowed for Sri. C.R. Ravishankar, to file Vakalath on behalf of R-3.