In respect of an accident which occurred between a

motorcycle and a Bulldozer, in which the rider of the motorcycle

Hanamanth Petlur was killed, a claim petition was filed by his

wife, children and mother.

The Tribunal on assessing the evidence came to the

conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on

the part of the driver of the Bulldozer. After assessing the

evidence regarding the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal

proceeded to award the following sums:

Sl.

No.

Heads

Amount

1

Towards loss of dependency

Rs. 6,48,000/-

2

Towards loss of estate

Rs. 15,000/-

3

Towards loss of consortium

Rs. 40,000/-

4

Towards funeral expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

Total

Rs. 7,18,000/-

Shri M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel appearing for

the insurer as usual, strenuously contended that the accident

occurred at a place where construction work of the road was

going on and the rider of the motorcycle was not supposed to

utilize the said road and as a consequence, he was entirely

negligent and this was the real cause of the accident. He also

- 5 -

submitted that the sum of Rs.9,000/- determined by the

Tribunal as the monthly income of the deceased was incorrect.

Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other

hand, contended that the road was not closed for traffic and the

accident occurred when the driver of the Bulldozer suddenly

brought his vehicle in reverse which resulted in collision. He

also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not

awarding future prospects and in not granting loss of

consortium to the wife, children and mother.

It is not in dispute that Hanmanth Petlur died as a

reason of the collision between the motorcycle and the

Bulldozer. The evidence on record also indicates that the

accident occurred when the Bulldozer suddenly came in a

reverse direction. The Tribunal has noticed that the police after

investigation had actually laid a charge-sheet against the driver

of the Bulldozer and this itself prima facie indicates that the

accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of

the Bulldozer. In the light of the charge-sheet that had been

laid and also the fact that the accident occurred when the

- 6 -

Bulldozer was travelling in the reverse direction, it will have to

be held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of

the driver of the Bulldozer.

The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the

deceased was aged 60 years and in the year 2016, it was quite

probable that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/-

p.m. As regards the monthly income, as per the income

determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, in

respect of the accident of the year 2016, the monthly income of

the victim is to be considered as Rs.8,750/- in the absence of

any documentary evidence. In my view, having regard to the

totality of the circumstances, the assessment of Rs.9,000/- per

month by the Tribunal, cannot be found fault with.

It is settled law that deceased being 60 years,

future prospects at the rate of 10% would have to be added

and this would result in the income of the deceased to be

computed at Rs.9,900/-.

8.

The deceased had left behind him, his wife, two

married daughters, two sons aged 24 and 26 years apart from

- 7 -

a mother. Having regard to the age of the sons, in my view, it

would be appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income which would

result in the monthly income of the deceased being Rs.6,600/-

(Rs.9,900 minus Rs.3,300 = 6,600/-).

9.

The age of the deceased being 60 years, a

multiplier of 9 would have to be adopted. Consequently, the

claimants

would

be

entitled

to

a

sum

of

Rs.6,600X12X9=7,12,800/-.

10.

Apart from the above, the claimants being the wife,

daughters, sons and mother, each of them would be entitled to

a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium.

11.

The claimants are also entitled to a sum of

Rs.33,000/- under the conventional head.

12.

Hence, the claimants are entitled to the modified

award which reads as under:

Sl.

No.

Heads