AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajulu
Though the matter had come up for admission, with the consent of both parties, it is taken for consideration on merits.
The legal representatives of one Narayana Poojary have preferred MVC No. 516/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and AMACT, Karkala, contending that Narayana Poojary died in a road traffic accident. Seek For compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
It is the case of the claimants that on 24.12.2007 at about 12.15 p.m. white Narayana Poojary was walking by the side of Karkala-Udupi main road, the. driver of the Maxi Cab bearing Registration No. KA 30 5140 has driven the vehicle rashly negligently and dashed Narayana Poojary, it resulted in his death.
The petitioners contend that Narayana Poojary was working as a coolie-cum-agriculturist, earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. They were solely dependant on his income. Since the dependants are seven in number, they seek for enhanced compensation.
The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed objections denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased, called upon the claimants to prove the accident, impact, contend that the claim is exaggerated. Further, contend that the liability is strictly in accordance with the terms of policy. So, prey for dismissed of the claim application.
Based upon the pleadings, PW1 is examined. The Tribunal, by the impugned order has fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,17,500/- with interest.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there being seven dependants, the income assessed at Rs. 2,250/- p.m. is on the lower side. Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses adopted by the Tribunal is not proper. So, seek for enhancement of compensation.
Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company submits that according to the P.M. report, the age of deceased is 70 years. So, there cannot be any material to show that the deceased was an earning member in the family. So, the method adopted by the Tribunal is proper. So, pray for dismissal of the appeal
I have carefully considered the material submissions, accident is admitted. Actionable negligence is not disputed. According to the teamed counsel for the Insurance Company, at the age of 70, there cannot be any earning by the said person. Further, as on the date of filing of the claim petition, one of his daughter i.e., petitioner No. 8 who is aged about 26 years was not married. So, as a father, it is his duty, under the law, to get the marriage of his daughter. So, his assistance to the family has to be assessed. The notional earning is different from the advise to the family. On this ground, the assertion of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that at the ripe age plaintiff 70, the Court has to take his earning as NIL, is not correct. Looking to the number of dependants, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the deceased has to be worked out at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. If 1/5th of the income is deducted towards personal expenses, ft works out to Rs. 1,44,000/- (1/5th of Rs. 3,000 = 600 (3000-600) = 2400 x 12 = 28,800 x 5) towards loss of dependency and another sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- as against Rs. 1,17,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. So, claimants are entitled for Rs. 66,500/-. It shall carry interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of application till deposit. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount in three months. Appeal is allowed in part.