( 1 ) THIS is a claimant's appeal against the judgment and award dated 15-9-1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chitradurga, in MVC No. 1397 of 1992.

( 2 ) WHEN the appellant and his wife Vijayakumari were proceeding in a car, from Goa to Bangalore, on 21-5-1992, a lorry bearing No. TN-28- 2853, coming from the opposite direction, being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. As a result of the head-on collision, Vijayakumari sustained serious injuries. She was taken to a hospital at Davanagere and later to NIMHANS, Bangalore, where she died on the same day at about 10. 00 p. m. The appellant filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 37,05,857. 00. The driver, owner and insurer of the lorry were impleaded as respondents 1, 2 and 3. The owner and insurer of the car were impleaded as respondents 4 and 5. The petition was resisted by respondents 2 to 5.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal framed appropriate issues regarding negligence of the driver of the lorry and driver of the car, entitlement of claimant of compensation and quantum of compensation. The appellant examined himself as P. W. 1 and examined an official from the college were the deceased was working as P. W. 2 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 18. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents. The insurance policies of the two vehicles involved in the accident were marked as Exs. R. 1 and R. 2.

( 4 ) THE evidence showed that deceased Vijayakumari was aged 37 years and was highly qualified. She possessed the degrees of M. A. (Sociology), M. Phil (Zoology) and M. Ed. She had enrolled herself for a doctorate in Zoology. She was working as Senior Lecturer in Zoology in chikkanna Government Arts College, Tiruppur, drawing a salary of Rs. 5,848. 00 made up of basic pay of Rs. 3,300. 00 plus Rs. 2,343. 00 (DA), Rs. 190. 00 (HRA) and Rs. 15. 00 (MA) [vide college Certificate at Ex. P. 6]. The deceased had married the appellant on 22-10-1990 and there were no children. The deceased was residing at Sowripalayam and was travelling 60 KMs. daily to Tiruppur, were she was working. Her husband (the appellant) was residing and working at Coimbatore as an assistant Manager in a Milk Dairy. On account of exigencies of service, they were maintaining separate establishments.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal by judgment and award dated 15-9-1998, allowed the claim petition in part. It held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and not due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The Tribunal found that the appellant and his wife were financially independent of each other, working at different places having separate establishments; and that therefore she would have spent 60 to 70% of her salary towards her maintenance, personal and living expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal held that, she would have a saving or contributed to the family nest about 30% of her salary. Having regard to the prospects of promotion, increments etc. , the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased as rs. 6,000/- and took 30% thereof [rs. 1,800/-] as the contribution to the family saving fund, which works out Rs. 21,600/- per annum. The tribunal applied a nuiltiplier of 11 and arrived at the total savings as rs. 2,37,600/- (rounded off to Rs. 2. 38 lakhs ). This was considered as the loss of estate. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- for funeral and transportation. Thus, the total compensation was fixed at Rs. 2,58,000/- and the third respondent was directed the pay the said amount. The petition was dismissed as against respondents 4 and 5. The Tribunal held that the appellant as the legal heir of the deceased was entitled to the said compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date of petition.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved, the claimant has filed this appeal contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate. According to the claimant, the deceased wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document