IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Somashekar, J.
Mariamma – Appellant
Versus
Kamalakshi – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 9265 of 2015
Decided On : 15-07-2019
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the wife and son of the deceased seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased was hit by a rashly driven vehicle and succumbed to injuries. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation as they were dependents of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's income was not properly considered by the Tribunal and re-evaluated the compensation amount. It also awarded additional compensation under various heads such as loss of dependency, consortium, and parental consortium. The court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment to award enhanced compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, proper evaluation of the deceased's income, and the entitlement of the claimants to enhanced compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the re-evaluation of the deceased's income, application of legal principles related to loss of dependency, consortium, and parental consortium, and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and awarded enhanced compensation to the claimants, modifying the judgment of the Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
K Somashekar, J.
Though this appeal is listed for admission with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants being the wife and son of the deceased-Aboobakkar against the judgment and award dated 06.11.2014 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Puttur in MVC No. 1763/2012 seeking enhancement of compensation, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. which found to be inadequacy and also on lower side in support of the income held by the Tribunal so also other head of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under: It is evident in the claim petition that on 11.10.2012 at about 9.30 a.m. when the deceased- Aboobakkar was proceeding on extreme left side of Yedamangala-Alakkady public road, that too on mud portion of the road and when he reached near place called Karimbila, a rider of Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-19-V-4249 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with great speed and hit to the deceased, as a result, he fell down and succumbed to the injuries while he was on the way to the hospital.
4. Deceased-Aboobakkar was businessman by profession, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But untimely death of the deceased, his wife has lost her companion, son has lost his beloved father's love and affection. Claimants were depending upon the sources of deceased to eke out their life and they are under depression and also mental agony. The claimants being the dependants of the deceased filed claim petition against the respondents seeking compensation.
5. In pursuance of the service of notice, respondent Nos. 2 appeared through his counsel and resisted the claim petition by filing separate written statements, denying the petition averments. First respondent remained absent throughout the proceedings and was placed as exparte.
6. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues for its consideration. In order to substantiate their case, petitioner No.2 got himself examined as PW.1 and got examined one more witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.9. Respondent No.1 got marked insurance policy as Ex.R1. After hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till deposit. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Whereas, learned counsel for the appellants has taken me the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and so also negligence on part of the rider of the offending vehicle. Because of the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by the rider, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. There is no dispute with regard to the age and occupation of the deceased but same has not been considered by the tribunal in a proper perspective. On all these grounds, the learned counsel seeks for intervention of this Court and prays to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
8. Per contra, Sri. S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that after considering the materials placed on record, the Tribunal has awarded the suitable compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, conventional heads etc. The Tribunal has also taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month even though there is no specific material to show the income. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
9. In this backdrop of the contentions taken by the learned Counsel for the appellants and counter made by
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.