AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure
The appellants dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Raghavendra in a road traffic accident have filed this appeal seeking enhancement. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:
It is on 14.06.2008 that Raghavendra (the deceased) was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-20/Q-946 towards Kudhi Village and at that time when the motor cycle was near Perampalli church, an auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No. KA-20/9002 came driven in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and bit the motor bike. Thereby, Raghavendra sustained severe injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The appellants being the father and mother have claimed the compensation towards loss of dependency and other conventional heads.
The respondents appeared and contested the petition before the Tribunal. During enquiry the appellants (sic) as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 6. The respondents examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.R. 1 - the Insurance Policy.
The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of the material on record granted compensation of Rs. 1,46,000/- with interest at 6% per annum holding that the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to an extent of 50% and assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation present appeal is filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is:-
Whether the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation? If so, to what extant?
So far as the question regarding the contributory negligence is concerned, the evidence reveals that it was head on collision between the motor cycle and the auto rickshaw. The evidence of PW.2 - pillion rider reveals that the deceased and the pillion rider who where in a hurry to proceed to it place wherein his grand mother had expired as their presence was necessary So, PW.2 states in his evidence i.e., it was in the night at about 10.00 p.m. they were proceeding in a hurry to reach the place and in a place where there was U-turn, the autorickshaw came from the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle. It is relevant to note that the deceased was also in a hurry to proceed to a place and as it was night-time while taking U-turn, there was a bead on collusion between the motor bike and the auto rickshaw. It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal has considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the deceased Raghavendra also in contributory negligence to an extent of 30% and I do not think to interfere with the said finding.
Raghavendra (the deceased) was a carpenter. The Tribunal considered his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2005. Even to a labour the Apex Court assessed the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month for an accident of the year 2001 and considering the high prices and also raise in the income, I think it would be just and proper to assess the income at Rs. 4,000/-per month. Thereby, the net loss of income would be as under:
= Rs. 24,000/- x 14 = Rs. 3,36,000/-
Another sum of Rs. 40,000/- would have to be added towards conventional heads. Therefore, the net compensation comes to Rs. 3,76,000/- and deducting 50% of the amount of compensation towards contributor negligence of the deceased, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,88,000/- with interest at 6% per annual from the date of petition till its payment. In that view of the matter, I answer the point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part, modifying the award passed by the Tribunal The appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,88,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment.
The appellants are permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation on deposit.