Court upheld Tribunal's ruling on contributory negligence at 50%, reaffirming that siblings are not considered dependents without evidence, resulting in enhanced compensation adjusted for contributory negligence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)

The MFA.No.200849/2019 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the MFA.No.200510/2019 is filed by the insurance company by challenging the liability as well as the quantum of compensation against the judgment and award passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur, in MVC.No.69/2012 dated 19.11.2018.

02. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

03. The appellants in MFA.No.200849/2019 are treated as claimants and the appellant in MFA.No.200510/2019 is treated as respondent – insurance in these appeals.

04. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that they have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.51,00,000/- for the death of their brother the deceased – Thirupati Shivpur, in a road traffic accident on 23.08.2011.

05. It is contended that the deceased - Virupaxi and the deceased – Thirupati Shivapur were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25-EB-5610 on 23.08.2011 from Desai Camp and the deceased - Thirupati was the rider of the motorcycle and was riding slowly and cautiously at about 09.00 p.m., when they reached near the Gali Durgamma Temple near the Manikera Camp, at that time the respondent No.1 being the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-36-6069 had parked the lorry in the middle of the road without any indicator, due to which the motorcycle dashed to the lorry and both the rider and the pillion rider sustained injuries and died on the spot.

06. The claimants taken contention that the deceased was the police constable and their brother. He is earning more than Rs.10,000/- salary per month. They are all dependents of the deceased – brother. Due to the untimely death, they have lost the dependency. This accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the lorry driver who parked the lorry in the middle of the road. The respondent No.3 - insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Hence, they claimed the compensation.

07. The respondents appeared and filed the objections denying the rash and negligent driving, age, income, occupation and dependency of the deceased. 08. The Tribunal framed 03 issues which are as under:-

I. Whether petitioners prove that the accident dated 23.08.2011 was due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-36/6069 resulting in the death of Thirupathi.?

II. Whether petitioners are entitled for award of compensation? If so, how much and from whom.?

III. What order or award.?

09. Earlier the insurance company and the claimants have filed the appeals before this Court in MFA.No.33087/2013 and MFA.No.201710/2014. The Division Bench of this Court has remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for considering the quantum of compensation. However, Coordinate Bench of this Court up held the contributory negligence held by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 and the matter was remitted back. Once again, the Tribunal has passed the award by awarding the compensation at Rs.15,83,868/- which is as under:-

10. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the appeal as well as the insurance company is also before this Court.

11. The learned counsel for the claimants has contended that though the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,156/- per month and added 50% of the salary as future prospects. But 50% deduction towards the personal expenditure is not correct, since there were 04 dependents in the family. All the brothers and sisters are unmarried. Therefore, deduction of 50% is not correct. Hence, prayed for deduct