The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for loss of dependency, love and affection, and funeral expenses in a road traffic accident case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

Though, this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, it is heard finally.

2. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of Annaji @ Gunda assailing the judgment and award dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Holenarasipura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for the sake of convenience) in M.V.C.No.420/2012.

3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

5. The appellants-claimants has filed the petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act', for the sake of brevity) claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of their son Annaji @ Gunda, who died in the road traffic accident, inter-alia, contending that on 19.02.2012, the said Annaji @ Gunda, being the cleaner of a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-13/A-492, while proceeding from Hassan to Palya on National Highway-48, the driver of the tanker lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01/AE-8366 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-13/A-492. Due to the collision of both vehicles, their son- Annaji @ Gunda died on the spot and due to the untimely death of their son, they lost their dependency. The deceased was an agriculturist and was working as a cleaner, earning Rs.25,000/- per month and was maintaining their family. The claimants are suffering from 'loss of love and affection', 'loss of estate', 'loss of dependency' and hence, they claimed compensation on various heads.

6. In pursuance to the notice, respondent No.1 has not appeared and contested the matter and remained exparte. The second respondent-insurer appeared before the Court through their advocate and filed statement of objections contending that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the driver and owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-13/A-492 are not made as parties but they are necessary parties. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the relationship between the deceased and the petitioner are not known to respondent No.2. Deceased was a bachelor, his age, occupation and the income are not within the knowledge of respondent No.2. It is also contended that the claim of the petitioners (appellants herein) is excessive and exorbitant. The version of the accident is not admitted. The drivers of the both vehicles have no valid and effective driving license to drive their vehicles. However, it was not admitted that the deceased was traveling in the lorry as a cleaner and therefore, the liability is fixed on the respondents. The interest should be levied only 6% per annum and hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration;

i. Whether the petitioners prove that on 19.02.2012 about 4 p.m., near Saganihole Bridge, on NH-48, at Palya of Alur Taluk, the deceased Annaji son of petitioners was traveling in a Lorry bearing No.KA-13-A-492 as a cleaner, at that time the driver of Gas tanker Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AE-8366 came from Sakaleshapura side rashly and negligently with high speed and hit to deceased Lorry, due to which the deceased sustained blood stained injuries and died at the spot?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation as claimed in the petition? If not, at what amount and from whom? iii. What Order or Award?

8. To substantiate the claim, claimant No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and has got marked nine documents as per Exs.P1 to P9. Respondent No.2 neither let in any evidence nor marked any document. The Tribunal, afte