A widowed wife, and a child, who lost his father in a vehicular accident, have approached this court with the hope that compensation awarded by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, by his award dated 04.03.2015, in MVC No. 439/2013, would be enhanced by this court.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 14.02.2013, around 9.45 p.m., Gadigeppa, the husband of appellant No.1, and the father of appellant No.2, was walking on side of a road with his friends after finishing his dinner. When the group of friends came near the Adargunchi Bridge, on Hubli-Lakshmeshwar road, suddenly, a lorry, bearing registration No. KA-22/B-2496, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the Hubli side, and dashed against Gadigeppa. Since grievous injuries were caused by the impact, he was immediately shifted to the KIMS Hospital at Hubli. Subsequently, he was also taken to Lifeline Hospital at Hubli for treatment. However, after undergoing medical treatment for fifteen days, Gadigeppa succumbed to the injuries.

3. Since the appellants lost the sole bread-earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate their case, the appellant No.1 examined herself as PW.1, and submitted twelve documents. The insurance company did not examine any witness, but did submit the insurance policy as a document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.11,37,091/- to the appellants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. Hence, this appeal before this court for enhancement.

4. Mr. Harish Maigur, the learned counsel for appellants, has raised the following contentions before this court :-

Firstly, although the appellants had pleaded that Gadigeppa was working as a contractor, and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, although they had submitted Ex.P9 and Ex.P10, clearly indicating that he was registered as a contractor, still the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the said documents. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income as merely Rs. 7,000/- per month. Thus, the very assessment of income is highly misplaced.

Secondly, since he was self-employed, since he was 41 years old, at the time of his death, the learned Tribunal was required to grant a compensation for the loss of future income suffered by the appellants under the category of ‘loss of dependency’. However, the appellants were not granted a single penny for the loss of future income suffered by the appellants. Thus, the very basis for calculating the ‘loss of dependency’ needs to be changed; the compensation in the said category needs to be re-calculated by this court.

Thirdly, despite the fact that appellant No.2 happens to be the young son, who at the relevant time was sixteen years old, and who has lost his father, still the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation to the appellant No.2 for ‘loss of love and affection’. Therefore, the interest of appellant No.2 has been totally ignored by the learned Tribunal.

Fourthly, although the appellant No.1 was still in her mid-life, as she was around forty years old, although she has at least thirty more years to live without the company, affection and love of her husband, still the learned tribunal has granted a meager sum of Rs.20,000/- for the category of ‘ lost of consortium’. Therefore, the compensation needs to be enhanced for the said category.

Fifthly, although the accident had occurred in February’ 2013, still the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs.10,000/- under the category of “Transportation of dead body, Funeral and obsequies’; considering the rate of inflation and high price of commodities, the compensation awarded under the said head is on the lower side. Hence the compensation for the said category also needs to be enhanced by this court.

5. On the other hand, the learned