AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—Even though the appeals are listed for admission, with consent of both the counsel, they are taken up for final disposal.
Both the insurers as well as the claimants are in appeal. The insurer is questioning the quantum on the ground that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is on the higher side and the income as taken by the Tribunal also warrants interference.
The claimants seek enhancement on the ground that as on the date of the accident the deceased was working with an emporium and was earning a sum of Rs. . 6.000/ p.m.
We have heard Mr .A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer as well as Mr. K. Hanumantharayappa, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants.
Indeed, Mr. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer submits that the insurer has not questioned the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal insofar as actionable negligence is concerned. He submits that the challenge is only to the quantum.
Mr. K. Hanumantharayappa, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the compensation as determined by the Tribunal warrants interference.
It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, the deceased was 26 years old. It is no doubt true that there is paucity of evidence as to the income of the deceased.
it is no doubt true that during the course of trial the claimants have made available Ex.P11 the salary certificate, which would disclose that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs. . 6,000/- p.m. But however, we notice that none has been examined in support of the said documents.
Be that as it may, we propose to take the income of the deceased at Rs. . 4,500/- p.m. and deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The loss of dependency would work out to Rs. . 3,000/- p.m. Since, the deceased was 26 years old; the proper multiplier in the circumstances would be ''17''. Thus, the loss of dependency would work out to (3,000x12x17) Rs. . 6,12,000/-, to which we add a sum of Rs. . 40,000/-under the conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation awardable to the claimants would be Rs. . 6,52,000/-. Hence, the following order:
(i) M.F.A. No. 1618/2006 filed by the claimants is accepted in part.
(ii) The compensation is enhanced to Rs. . 6,52,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.
(iv) The appeal filed by the insurer i.e., M.F.A. No. 860/2006 stands dismissed.
(v) The amount in deposit in the appeal filed by insurer in M.F.A. No. 860/2006 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
(vi) Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.