AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
Wife and mother of deceased Lokesh are the appellants. The claim petition filed by them in the MACT under S.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed in part. Compensation of ` 4,77,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. was ordered to be paid by the respondents, the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle. The respondents have satisfied the award passed by the MACT. This appeal is for enhancement of compensation by the claimants. Smt. Kavitha H.C., learned Advocate contended that the deceased was aged about 20 years, was doing agricultural work and earning ` 6,000/- p.m. Learned counsel submits that, as against credible evidence of PW-1, there being no rebuttal evidence by the respondents, Tribunal has committed error in taking the income of the deceased at ` 3,000/- p.m. and in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and in assessing the loss of dependency at ` 4,32,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that, when the claim petition was filed, even father of the deceased was alive and in the circumstances, 1/4th ought to have been deducted towards personal & living expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that there is need for re-assessment of compensation.
Sri K.K. Vasanth, learned advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company, on the other hand, would contend that there is no credible evidence with regard to the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased at ` 3,000/- p.m. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased having left behind only two dependents, father of the deceased having died during the pendency of the claim petition, Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and taking loss of dependency at ` 24,000/- p.a. and in determining the compensation payable accordingly. Learned counsel seeks dismissal of the appeal.
Having regard to the rival contentions, only point for consideration is, whether the Tribunal has passed just award?
Deceased was aged 20 years at the time of death. He was hale & healthy and an able bodied person. He was doing agricultural work. Even in the absence of credible evidence with regard to avocation and earnings of the deceased, Tribunal ought to have taken his income at ` 4000/- p.m. or ` 48,000/- p.a., since the accident occurred on 09.03.2008. An agricultural coolie can earn ` 48,000/- p.a. Dependents being two in number, Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd of income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Loss of dependency ought to have been determined at ` 2667 x 12 x 18 = ` 5,76,000/''- and under the conventional heads, ` 40,000/-ought to have been added. There is under-assessment of loss by the MACT.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment / Award is modified. Appellant is held entitled to total compensation of ` 6,16,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit, in the MACT. However, appellant is disentitled to interest on the enhanced compensation amount, for the delay period of 190 days in filing the appeal, condoned conditionally vide order dated 05.03.2012.
Respondent - Insurance Company is granted two months'' time to deposit the balance compensation amount in the MACT. Tribunal to pass further order with regard to apportionment and investment etc.
No order as to costs. Sri K.K. Vasanth, learned Advocate, is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of the respondent - Insurance Company, within a period of 4 weeks.