AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D V Shylendra Kumar
This appeal u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short ''the Act'') by the North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 08.03.2012 on the file of the Court of Fast Track Court-I at Raichur passed in MVC No. 623/2011 raising a short ground that while quantifying the total compensation payable to the dependents of one Shamshuddin at a sum of Rs. 8,00,800/-, the Tribunal has committed an error in quantifying the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency'' to the claimants at a sum of Rs. 7,48,800/- and therefore this requires to be corrected. Mr. Shivashankar H. Manur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation also seeks to urge that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased person who has not exercised proper care and vigil while crossing the road etc.
While this argument is opposed by Mr. Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel appearing for caveator respondent No. 1, the argument that the Tribunal has committed an error in making deduction towards the personal expenditure of the deceased for arriving at the loss of dependency to the claimants and the Tribunal deducted only one fifth of the income towards the personal expenditure is wrong even on the ratio of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA & ORS. v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992.
Submission of Mr. Shivashankar H. Manur, learned counsel is that as per this judgment, if the dependents in the family of a deceased person is six or less, i.e., between four and six, deduction is only one fourth and it is only when there are more than six dependents the deduction will be one fifth; that in the instant case, the number of dependents is only six and therefore one fourth should have been deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased.
This legal position is not disputed by Mr. Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel, as in the factual position, the number of dependants and/or the claimants is also six.
However, what is pointed out is that if the deceased was a driver having a license of heavy motor vehicles, as against the claim of the dependents that his income was Rs. 8,000/- per month, the Tribunal had taken only Rs. 6,000/-per month which is on the lower side and the quantification of compensation under the other heads which is as under is on the lower side.
On an overall examination, though I find that on a strict application of SMT. SARLA VERMA''S case (supra), there is scope for reducing the loss of dependency to a sum of Rs. 7,02,000/- as against Rs. 7,48,800/- quantified by the Tribunal, having regard to the conservative estimation of compensation under the other heads and also the income, I do not find any need for disturbing the quantification as arrived at by the Tribunal, as even assuming that in computation under the head ''loss of dependency'', there is some excess, it is more than compensated by the conservative compensation awarded'' under the other heads. Therefore, I do not find any need to interfere with the award of the Tribunal arriving at a total compensation of Rs. 8,00,800/- for correction in this appeal.
Appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
The amount in deposit before this court is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
The appellant-Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount with interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from today. In view of dismissal of the main appeal itself, I.A. No. 1/2012 for stay does not survive for consideration, hence dismissed.