AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—Heard.
Admitted and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal,
The insurance company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has preferred this appeal seeking reduction of compensation.
As there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased C.M. Nagaraju in a motor road accident occurred on 303-2006 while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-02-V-7551 due to rash and negligent driving of 407 tempo bearing No. TSI-9491 and the liability of the Insurance Company, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?
The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal is not justified in deducting 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses for working out the loss of dependency and further he submits that even the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,500/-is on the higher side and hence he prays for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation.
The learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for reduction and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
The deceased C.M. Nagaraju aged about 23 years was working as Executive Marketing Manager at Mahalakshmi Enterprises, Kumbarpet Main Road, Bangalore and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- at the time of accident as per the salary certificate Ex. P5. His employer who was examined as PW3 has stated that the deceased was working as Executive Marketing Manager and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/-''. In the cross-examination he has stated that he has not produced the wage list. The Tribunal considering the same, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/-per month. Which is just and proper and does not call for interference.
The deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal is not justified in deducting 1/3 of his income towards personal expenses. In the case of bachelor 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The age of the mother of the deceased is 42 years and multiplier applicable to. her age group is 14. If that is so, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,78,000/- and it is awarded as against Rs. 5,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ''loss of dependency''.
Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ''loss of expectancy/estate'' is just and proper and does not call for interference.
Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses'' is on the lower side and it is deserved to be enhanced by another Rs. 5,000/- and therefore it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under this head.
The claimants have lost their son and they are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 20.000/- under the head ''love and affection''.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the Judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified. The claimants are awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,18,000/- as against Rs. 5,55,000/-awarded by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs. 1,37,000/-.
Rest of the award of the Tribunal is remained undisturbed. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal.