Legal representatives of a deceased are entitled to claim compensation whether or not fully dependent, and assessment of income for claims should follow established guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and award in MVC No.412/2014, dated 17.01.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge And Member Additional M.A.C.T, Kundapura, whereby an award for a sum of Rs.5,42,690/- was made in favour of the petitioners. The appellants- claimants have approached this Court in MFA No.6685/2017 seeking enhancement and the Insurance Company has approached this Court in MFA.Crob.No.130/2018.

3. The factual aspects of the matter is that on 03.09.2008 at about 07.30 a.m., the deceased Manju Poojary was proceeding on his two wheeler from Uppunda Shala Bagilu side towards Ambagilu. A goods auto- rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-20-A-8463 owned by respondent No.1 and driven by her driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the back side of the two wheeler of the deceased Manju Poojary resulting in his fall on the side of the road and he was shifted to K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal. While he was inpatient, he succumbed to the injuries. A case was registered against the driver of the auto-rickshaw by the concerned Police and ultimately a charge- sheet was filed against the driver of the auto- rickshaw. The claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition in MVC No.412/2014 before the Senior Civil Judge and Member Additional M.A.C.T, Kundapura. It is their contention that the deceased Manju Poojary was working as a coolie and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and they had spent huge amount towards the medical expenses and as such they may be awarded reasonable and just compensation from the owner and insurer of the goods auto-rickshaw.

4. The petition was resisted by respondent No.2 -Insurance Company contending that though the vehicle was covered by the policy, the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the driver of the auto-rickshaw and as such, the liability has to be fastened upon respondent No.1. Inter-alia it was also contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. They also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and sought for dismissal of the petition as against them.

5. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner No.5 was examined as PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2. Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked in evidence. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however the policy was marked as Exhibit R1. Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and as such, she was placed ex-parte. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,42,690/- under the following heads:

6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court in MFA No.6685/2017 and respondent No.2 -Insurance Company has approached this Court in MFA Crob.No.130/2018.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submit that the Tribunal has erred in holding the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, but it should have been taken at Rs.10,000/- per month. He also submits that under conventional heads viz., towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has not followed the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the c