The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct calculation and award of compensation in motor accident claims, including the interpretation of legal provisions and the application of precedents.

JUDGMENT :

K. Somashekar, J.

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 18.2.2014 passed in MVC No.7513/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XXIV, Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru city, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment.

3. The appellant-insurer has filed this appeal contending that the tribunal has awarded compensation in sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of expectancy, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. The compensation awarded under these heads by the tribunal does not arise. Therefore, it requires interference by this Court for consideration on merits.

4. Factual matrix of this appeal are as under :

It is stated in the claim petition that on 25.6.2012 at around 7.00 a.m., the deceased Narayanappa along with his son namely Nanjundappa was proceeding on the left side of the footpath in front of Aiyyappa Swamy temple near Kantharaja circle, on Kolar-Mulbagal NH-4. At that relevant point of time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-01-AB-107, which is the offending vehicle, came in a rash and negligent manner and went on the wrong side towards road and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained the grievous injuries.

Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. The age of the deceased at that relevant point of time was shown as 60 years and income of the deceased was shown at Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence, the claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased seeking compensation from the respondents.

5. On issuance of notice to the respondents, respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurance company filed written statement resisting the claim petition filed by the petitioners seeking compensation for the death of the deceased.

6. In order to establish their case, claimant No.3-A.N. Nanjundapppa was examined himself as P.W.1 and the documents copy of complaint, FIR, spot panchanama, seizure mahazar, MV report, medical bills, inquest mahazar, PM report sketch, ration cards, copy of I.D. card of Srinivas and charge sheet were got marked as Exs. P.1 to P.11 respectively. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined nor the documents were got marked.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated issues and gave its findings on the said issues and allowed the petition in part, awarding compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents in order to establish the case against the respondents-claimants and submitted that the tribunal has erroneously given its finding that the claimants respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the dependants of the deceased. All the respondents-claimants are married and self-reliant persons and the same has been revealed in the claim petition. Therefore, granting the compensation under the head loss of dependency is erroneous and does not arise and it requires interference by this Court. It is further contended that the tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Likewise, deduction of 1/3rd of income of the deceased towards his personal expenses is found to be erroneous. The compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of consortium is also found to be erroneous. These are the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant which call for interference of this Court for modification.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 by reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. He submitted that P.W.1-Nanjundappa has given his evidence by establishing his