AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K., Mangaluru [the ''Tribunal'', for short] in MVC No.520/2016.
Briefly stated the facts are:
That the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased, preferred petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of Hasainar @ Haisanar in the road traffic accident which occurred on 9.3.2016. It was contended that the negligence of the driver of Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-D- 1201 was the cause for the accident. On issuance of process, the Insurance Company appeared and contested the matter. The Tribunal, analyzing the material evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.20,10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization fastening the liability on the insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurer is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the material on record.
The primary grievance of the learned Counsel is in as much as the determination of the income of the deceased. It was contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month; no concrete evidence was made available on record by the claimants to establish the factum of the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have determined the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. It is apparent from the material evidence placed on record by the claimants that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of Ashok Leyland Ecomet vehicle purchased in the year 2014 by obtaining loan from L & T Finance, Balmatta Branch, Mangaluru. Exhibit.P7 is the driving licence of the deceased. Exhibit.P8 is the RC book of the said lorry registered in the name of the deceased. Exhibit.P19 is fitness certificate of the said vehicle. These documents clearly establish that the deceased was the owner of the said lorry. Though no adequate evidence was placed on record to establish the factum of income of the deceased, considering the factual aspects in relation to the age of the deceased who was 28 and his occupation, the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs.12,000/- which in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be construed as excessive as canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads is just and proper. Accordingly, it can be held without hesitation that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in excess of Rs.5 lakhs as contended by the appellant.
The appeal is bereft of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA No.1/2017 stands disposed of.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement.