The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, and loss of estate, based on the dependency of the deceased's family members and the deceased's income, in accordance with relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The Insurance Company is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.03.2011 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT and Iteranate Court, Byadagi ('Tribunal', for short) in MVC No.586/2010, allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants thereby awarding an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

2. Heard. Admit.

3. With the consent, the above appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. The fact of occurrence of accident and/or death of Smt.Seethamma in the said accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Smt.Seethamma. The applicability and coverage of the insurance policy is also not in dispute. The appellant-Insurance Company is before this Court only challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of claimants.

5. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads:

6. Sri. Nagaraj C. Kolloori, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would submit that there is an error committed by the Tribunal insofar as the deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased as also on the calculation of income for the purpose of awardal of compensation. Sri. Kolloori would submit that the deceased Smt. Seethamma is survived by her husband and her major sons who were the claimants before the Tribunal, the husband being 68 years of age and sons being 48, 44 and 34 years of age respectively. Thus he submits that these sons being majors, they cannot be said to be depending on the deceased Seethamma and as such, for the purpose of calculation of deduction in personal expenses, the dependency of only the husband has to be considered eschewing the dependency of major sons.

7. In this regard he relies on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.Geeta Hukumchand Bagewadi Vs. Smt. Sundarawwa Shivaray Naikhe in MFA No.20759/2012 dated 15.04.2019, wherein the dependency of major sons has been eschewed. He seeks for the said dicta to be made applicable in the present case also.

8. As regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken into consideration a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident having occurred on 25.06.2009, he submits that, when there are no documents which had been produced by the claimants to establish the income of the deceased at the time of the death, at the most the notional income as arrived at in the chart prepared for the purpose of Lok Adalath could have been considered, which in the year 2009 is Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence he submits that the income of Rs.6,000/- which has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore the same ought to be reduced.

9. Heard Sri. Nagaraj C. Kolloori, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. Though the respondents have been served, none appeared on their behalf.

10. Perusal of the cause title would indicate that the claimant Nos.2 to 4 were majors aged 48, 44 and 34 years respectively. Hence applying the ruling of Geeta Hukumchand Bagewadi's case (supra), they cannot be said to be dependants on the deceased. Therefore the Tribunal having considered them to be dependents and deducted 1/3rd of the income for personal expenses cannot be sustained. Applying the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporations case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , there being only one dependent, 50% of the income is required to be deducted