The Manager vs Smt. P.N. Swetha and Others

C.R. Kumaraswamy, J.—This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed u/s 173(1) of MV act against the judgments and award dated: 10.02.2011 passed in MVC No. 174/2006 on the file of District Judge and MACT, Kodagu, Madikeri, awarding a compensation of Rs. 8,65,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, this matter was heard on merits. The records of the claims Tribunal were also called for and I have perused the same.

The case of the claimants in the Claims Tribunal is as under:-

That on 22.05.2006 at about 4 p.m., the deceased P.R. Nagesh was travelling with C.N. Ashwath as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing registration No. MYZ-7948. When they were proceeding near Kagadikatte Bus stop, one Tata Mini Lorry bearing registration No. KA-12-8069 came from back side with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cyclists, consequently, a pillion rider P.R. Nagesh succumbed to the injuries.

The deceased was aged about 36 years and he was agriculturist. The monthly income of the deceased in the claim petition is mentioned as Rs. 8,000/- per month.

The respondent No. 1 has adopted the objection statement filed by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has filed objection statement in the claims Tribunal denying the allegation made in the claim petition.

The claims Tribunal has observed at para-10 of the judgment as under:

The police papers and other concerned records disclose that the case was registered against the driver of Mini Lorry. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record clearly goes to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini Lorry bearing registration No. KA-12-8069, consequently, P.R. Nagesh succumbed to the injuries.

The claims Tribunal has also observed at para-14 of the judgment as under:

According to the petitioners, the deceased was earning Rs. 10,00,000/- per year. But there are no documents to show that his earning was Rs. 10,00,000/-. In the instant case, there are no records to show that the deceased was working on monthly basis. The evidence placed on record and the RTCs goes to show that the deceased and two other family members are jointly owning the lands measuring about 11.76 acres. As such, the family of the deceased might be having share of about 4.00 acres. Considering these aspects, the yearly gross income from agricultural lands of the deceased is taken as Rs. 1,50,000/-. Even in the absence of a working member in the family, the agricultural operations will not be stopped. The said agricultural operations may be carried out with the help of labourers. Considering this aspect, the net income is taken as Rs. 80,000/- per annum. The deceased has got wife, two minor children and old aged mother. In the present case, 1/3rd amount has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the balance 2/3rd amount would be contributed to support the family members. The deceased was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident. In the post mortem report, age of the deceased was shown as 36 years. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 8,10,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of dependency, Rs. 25,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses and Rs. 20,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of consortium for the loss of companion. In all, the claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,65,000/-.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Insurance company has preferred this appeal seeking for reduction of the compensation.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that in the absence of the documentary or acceptable evidence, the claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at higher rate. Therefore, he prays to reduce the compensation. He further submits that though the earning member of the family has died, the legal heirs of the deceased can continue to do the agricultural operations. Therefore, the income assessed by the claims Tribunal is on the higher side.

Ex. P10-RTCs for the year 2007-08 wherein its contents discloses that in Sy. No. 10 Katha No. 44, in the cultivators column, the deceased Nagesh name is found and the nature of crop grown is Coffee, in Sy. No. 9 Katha No. 1, in the cultivators column, the deceased Nagesh name is found and the nature of crop grown is paddy, in Sy. No. 1 Katha No. 40, in the cultivators column, the deceased Nagesh name is found and the nature of crop grown is Coffee, in Sy. No. 26 Katha No. 53, in the cultivators column, the deceased Nagesh name is found and the nature of crop grown is Coffee and in Sy. No. 19 Katha No. 53, in the cultivators column, the deceased Nagesh name is found and the nature of crop grown is Coffee. On careful perusal of the RTC extracts, it is found that the coffee and paddy is grown in the land. Taking into consideration of this aspect, the claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,666/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,10,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.

Learned counsel for respondents submits that the income assessed by the claims Tribunal is on the lower side though the deceased was growing the coffee. However, in the absence of acceptable or documentary evidence, the claims Tribunal has constrained to assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,666/- per month.

Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the income assessed by the claims Tribunal is on the higher side, but taking into consideration that the coffee is grown in the land, as per RTC extract, therefore, in my view, the income assessed by the claims Tribunal i.e., Rs. 6,666/- per month is reasonable and the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is also reasonable. Learned counsel for appellant has failed to make out the case to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the claims Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Miscellaneous First Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.

2) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned claims Tribunal.

Since the main matter has been disposed off, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2/2013 filed for withdrawal of amount do not survive for consideration, accordingly, they are dismissed.