AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil
This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 6th April 2009, passed in M.V.C.No.29/2008. by the Civil Judge(Sr.Dn) and J MFC and Member, MACT, Virajpet, (for short, Tribunal''), for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 6,26,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 20.00 Lakhs, is excessive and on the higher side.
The facts in brief are that, claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant: Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased late K.K. Shashidhar, They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 7:30 P.M. on 21-11-2007, when the deceased was travelling in a Tata indigo Car with one M.K. Kabirdas of Ponnampet, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said car bearing Registration No.KA-05/MK-13. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to nearby Hospital and Civil Hospital, Virajpet and Madikeri Hospital in an Ambulance and he was shifted to Mysore Hospital for further treatment. But, unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to Mysore.
It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in his death and on account of his untimely death, the wile has lost the life partner, the family has lost the only source of income, the children have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance from their father and the mother has lost the social and financial support permanently and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants riled the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs against the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 6th April 2009. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,26,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking; reduction of the same.
I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for Insurer and the Learned Counsel for claimants, for considerable length of time.
The principal submission canvassed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer is that, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month. The same is on the higher side and needs to be re-assessed. Further, he submits that the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency taking the said monthly income is also liable to be reduced considerably.
7, As against this, Learned Counsel appearing for claimants, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award, stating that the same is passed after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, such as age, avocation, year of accident, etc. and therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for.
Alter hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and after re appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, I do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month, and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, for awarding compensation towards loss of dependency. Exs.P5 to P15 show that the deceased was a B.A. graduate, a sports person and also a member of the Ponnampet Gram Panchayath. It is stated that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The same may be a bit exaggeration. The accident has occurred in the year 2007 and the dependents are four in number and all of them are womenfolk. In fact, if the number of dependents are strictly taken into consideration, 1/4th is to be deducted by the Tribunal. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the age, avocation, number of dependents, year of accident, the multiplier applied and the multi-faceted activities of the deceased person, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation towards loss of dependency and it does not call for interference.
Further, so far as the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is concerned, I am of the view that the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation towards conventional heads also, having regard to the two minor daughters, aged mother, etc. therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurer is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
The amount, if any, in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.