Point of Law: Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money.

JUDGMENT :

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. The present appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in judgement and award passed in MVC No.339/2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi as well as not considering the contributory negligence aspect.

3. Factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 12.04.2012 the Smt. Renuka W/o Gangappa Saunshi was travelling in tempo towards Hubballi to attend a marriage function and when the said vehicle reached near Yamanur, at that time a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-25/C-19 came and dashed to the tempo from opposite direction. As a result, the Renuka sustained grievous injuries and immediately she was taken to PHC, Navalgund, thereafter to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and she succumbed during the course of treatment on account of accidental injuries. Hence, the claimants being the dependants, laid a claim before the Tribunal.

4. In pursuance of the claim petition, notice was ordered and respondent No.1 remained absent and respondent No.2 was represented through counsel and filed detailed statement of objections. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, have examined the husband of deceased as PW.1 and also examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.6. On the other hand, the respondents have not led any evidence.

5. The Tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.5,91,600/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. against respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company contending that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo in which the deceased was travelling. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company also contended that the tempo has been used for transporting the marriage party, as such the charge sheet has been filed only against the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal has swayed away by the charge sheet and gave a finding to the effect that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry alone, which is erroneous and hence it requires interference since there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo also.

7. The other contention of the insurance company is that the claim petition has been filed by the husband of the deceased and major and married daughters of the deceased. The claimant No.1 is a retired school teacher and pensioner and major children cannot be called as dependants upon their deceased parents. The Tribunal instead of awarding compensation only under the head of loss of estate, has awarded compensation under the head of loss of dependency, which is erroneous.

8. The other contention of the insurance company is that claimant No.1 is the husband of deceased who has been examined as PW.1 and during his cross-examination it is elicited that at the time of marriage he was aged about 24-25 years and the age of his wife was 19 years. That means the age gap between claimant No.1-husband and deceased-wife was of six years and the accident has occurred in the year 2012 and the witness has been deposed in the year 2013. Witness has deposed in his evidence that he was aged 64 years. If the said fact is taken into consideration, the deceased was 57 years old as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier would be 9 and not 13 as is adopted by the Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company also in his argument relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Manjuri Bera vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another passed in Civil Appeal No.1702/2007 dated 30.03.2007 and referring to this judgement, he would submit that the married daughte