AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are:
That on 05-08-06, when the deceased Jagadish was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-06-W-9455 from Dobbspet via Doddaballapura road, near Chikkayellaiahnapalya, the rider of the said motor cycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained head injury and succumbed on the way to Hospital. Hence, his father and second daughter filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore, making the first daughter of the deceased as third Respondent, seeking compensation of Rs. 10.30,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,24,000/- with interest at 8% p.a.
As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 5-8-06 due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending motor cycle, the only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for reduction?
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is less than just entitlement, and therefore it need not be interfered with.
Learned Counsel appearing for the insurer submits, claimants are aged father and married daughter of the deceased. The Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and taking 2/3rd as contribution towards the family and awarding compensation and he prays for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation.
Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits, father of the deceased is aged 72 years and he was depending on the income of his deceased son. Second claimant is the second daughter of the deceased and she was unmarried as on the date of death of her father. Therefore, deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and taking 2/3rd as contribution to the family is just and proper and quantum of compensation awarded is just and proper, there is no scope for reduction, and he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
Deceased Jagadish was aged about 50 years at the time of his death in the accident as evident from post mortem report - Ex.P.6. First claimant who is the father of the deceased was aged about 72 years at the time of the death of his son - Jagadish and it has to be accepted that he was depending on the income of his deceased son. Second claimant is the second daughter of the deceased and she got married on 4-2-07, whereas her father died on 5-8-06. That means she was unmarried daughter as on the dale of death of her father. Deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and his contribution of 2/3rd towards the family is just and proper. In the above circumstances, ''13'' multiplier has to be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased.
Tribunal considering age of the deceased, year of accident as 2006 and his profession as business, has rightly assessed his income at Rs. 4,000/- per month. So loss of dependency works out to Rs. 4,16,000/-(Rs. 4.000/- x 2/3 x 12 x 13), whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,84,048/- and there is no scope for reduction under this head.
As Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different conventional heads is just and proper, there is no scope for reduction.
As the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is found to be less than just entitlement, there is no scope for reduction and accordingly the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
No order as to costs.