Financial dependency was established through evidence, necessitating a reassessment of compensation to account for the deceased's independent income and contributions to the family.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 13.12.2017 passed in MVC No.1552/2015 by the learned MACT and II Additional District Judge, Belagavi (for short ‘Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, on 03.06.2014, at around 01.15 p.m., the deceased-Usha along with the appellants were travelling in a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-22/P-9444 from Udupi to Belagavi after attending a marriage ceremony at Udupi. When the said vehicle reached near Nirmakki mushroom factory within the limits of Kadur village, Udupi taluk, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-22/P-9444 driving in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and dashed to a tree causing an accident. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased-Usha sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. It is also averred that due to the death of the deceased, the appellants suffered an irreparable loss and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) seeking compensation.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance and submitted their objections. They denied all the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. The appellants examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The respondent no.1 examined himself as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1.

4. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the appellant No.1. However, on the issue of compensation, the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others , 2007 ACJ 1279 and held that the applicants are not dependants. The Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid decision, ordered the respondent No.2 to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

5. Sri Naveen R.Melinamani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation of Rs.50,000/- by holding the husband and children of the deceased are not dependents. It is submitted that the judgment relied by the Tribunal of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjuri (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. PW1 in his evidence has clearly deposed that the claimants were dependents on the income of the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged about 32 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month from the hotel business and due to untimely death, the family suffered emotional as well as financial dependency. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, Sri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the deceased was a wife of claimant No.1 and she was dependent on the income of the claimant No.1. Hence, the claimants cannot be termed as dependents and the Tribunal rightly come to the said conclusion and awarded Rs.50,000/- as a compensation, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel appellants, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the materials available on record.

8. The point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is “whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?”

9. The above point is answered in the ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons:

(a) The husband, childr