AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath
Aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 9-8-2007 passed in MVC No. 46/2006 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional MACT, Chinthamani, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal questioning the quantum.
The case of the appellant is that the Tribunal has granted an excessive amount of compensation and that the compensation has been awarded to the claimants namely, the grand-mother and other family members of the deceased. He primarily contends that the age of the first claimant is shown as 60 years, whereas in the postmortem report vide Ex. P-7 the age of the deceased is 26 years and hence mathematically she cannot be a grand-mother. He further contends that the amount awarded towards funeral and other expenses to an extent of Rs. 10,000/- is excessive and the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation of sum of Rs. 20,000/-towards loss of marriage prospects in as much as the deceased was a bachelor.
The counsel for respondent No. 1 is absent. The other respondents are served and unrepresented.
On hearing the counsels I''am of the considered view that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. The question of awarding compensation towards marriage prospects would not arise at all since the deceased succumbed to his injuries and hence awarding compensation towards loss of marriage prospects requires to be deleted. In so far as the contention that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards funeral and other expenses is excessive, I''am unable to accept the said contention. The amount awarded is just and reasonable. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the same. No other contention is advanced so far as other heeds of compensation is concerned.
The contention that the first claimant aged 60 years could not be the grand-mother of the deceased is not acceptable. The deceased in terms of Ex. P-7 is aged 26 years and it cannot therefore merely on the basis on Ex. P-7 be held a grand-mother aged 60 years cannot truly be a grand-mother of the grand child aged 26 years. There is a possibility especially in view of the fact that the claimants are residents of a village and not of a city, that the contention requires to be rejected.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The Judgment & award is modified to the extent of deleting a sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards loss of marriage prospects. The rest of the award stands. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The amount kept in-deposit in terms of the order dated 15-12-2011 is directed to be dissolved and sent to the Tribunal for necessary action.