AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The deceased in M.V.C. 2669/95, one Sarojarnina an inmate of the lorry died in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioners are the husband and son. the Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment and directed the owner and insurer to pay the same. The petitioners are in appeal seeking enhancement.
The deceased was a housewife and agriculturist. The income of the deceased is stated to be Rs. 900/- p.m. AS per the unit system, Rs. 300/- is to be defrayed towards personal expenses.
The total loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,08,000/- (600 x 10 x 12). The 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 10,000/-towards loss of expectancy, Rs. 3,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses; in all, petitioners are entitled to Rs. 1,31,000/- with interest at 6% p. a. from the data of petition till payment as against Rs. 1,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Sri A.M. Vankatesh, learned Counsel for the 3cd respondent resisted the liability of the insurer to pay the enhanced compensation on the ground that the award is satisfied, in view of the decision of the apex court in SATPAL SINGH''S case. But the later decisions in JAIDEVAPPA''S case and ASHA RANI''S case lay down that carrying of passengers in a goods vehicle is illegal. The insurer is not liable to pay compensation for death or bodily injury caused to the passengers in goods vehicle. It is stated that on account of the legal compulsion, the award is satisfied, in view of change of law, the insurer does not incur legal liability to pay enhanced compensation. The argument is sound and proper. Accordingly, enhanced compensation shall be payable by the owner of the vehicle as indicated above. The appeal against the insurer is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.