The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the principles of dependency in motor vehicle accident cases, as established in the case of Sarala Verma(smt) and Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

JUDGMENT

V. Srishananda, J. - Unsatisfied claimants are before this court in this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur, dated 09.04.2014 in MVC No.137/2012.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under :

The claimant contended that on 10.11.2011 at about 18.45 hours on Haveri Ranebennur P.B. road, near Hoolihalli village when one Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger was crossing the road the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-07/F-1466 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Whereby he sustained fatal injuries and he was shifted to Ranebennur Government hospital and for further treatment he was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere. However, Mr.Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger was succumbed to the injuries on 14.11.2011. The claimants are the brothers of the deceased.

3. Further, it is contended that the claimants have incurred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and funeral expenses and further, it is contended that said Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and business and the entire family was dependent on his earnings and due to untimely death of Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger the family has lost their bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. On issuance of notice before the tribunal, the respondent appeared and did not choose to file any written statement. Thereafter, second claimant got examined himself as PW1 and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P7 in support of their case.

5. On the basis of cumulative consideration of the entire evidence on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not dependant on the income of the deceased as they were having their own independent source of income and there was no further material on record to show that the deceased in fact was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and did not grant any compensation on the head of loss of dependency.

6. Tribunal granted the compensation on the following heads:

7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the compensation awarded even on the other heads is too low and meager. Therefore, sought for enhancement of the compensation.

8. It is further contended that the tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased for a sum of Rs.4,500/- and as such, the same needs to be increased and suitable compensation be awarded appropriately.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the deceased was bachelor and therefore, applying the principles of law enunciated in the case of Sarala Verma(smt) and Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the brothers and sisters do not become the dependants and as such, the award passed by the tribunal perfectly justified. The counsel for the respondent further contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal on the other heads perfectly justified and as such, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the parties, the sole point that would arise for consideration is :

1. Whether the claimants made out a case for enhancement of compensation?

11. The answer for the above point is affirmative for the following reasons:

REASONS

12. In the case on hand, the death of Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger in the accident occurred on 10.11.2011 involving KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-07/F-1466 and Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger having died