A C SYAMALA Vs. DEVAKI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30. 9. 1989, delivered by the Additional district Judge/ii-Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Chitradurga, in Motor Accident claim Case No. MVC 348 of 1986, awarding in total a sum of Rs. 3,43,000, as compensation. Claimants feeling aggrieved have come up before us by way of this appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that on 19. 4. 1986, one Alakanandaswamymath, alleged to be aged about 43 years at the time of death, who was the Principal of S. J. V. P. College, Harihar and Secretary of Priyadarshini Education Society at lakshmeswar, met with an accident and died there on the spot. Claimants' case is, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. TNA 1749 and car bearing No. MEU 5556, the deceased met with the accident and died on the spot at 2 a. m. According to the claimants' case, on account of death of alakanandaswamymath, there was nobody to look after the family and they were left with only lands. According to claimants' case, the deceased was working as Principal and Secretary, as mentioned earlier in priyadarshini Education Society and was getting a sum of Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 2,000, from these respective institutions. The claimants made a claim in total for a sum of Rs. 9,75,000. The petitioners claimed rs. 8,40,000 towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs. 50,000, towards general damages and mental agony, Rs. 50,000 towards special damages, Rs. 3,000 towards transportation of dead body and Rs. 2,000 towards the funeral expenses, as well as rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium. Petitioners also claimed towards future maintenance of the deceased's mother, a sum of Rs. 25,000.

(3.) OBJECTIONS were filed on behalf of the opposite parties, namely, on behalf of the respondents denying the allegation that there was any negligence of their respective vehicles. It was alleged that it is false to assert that on 19. 4. 1986, at 2 a. m. , near lakshmisagar Gate, lorry No. TNA 1749 and car No. MEU 5556, were involved in the accident and at that time the deceased alakanandaswamymath, was travelling in the car and due to accident, he sustained injuries and died on account of injuries. The driver of the lorry denied that accident was on account of any rash and negligent driving of the driver. In the same way, on behalf of the lorry owner it was alleged that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car No. MEU 5556 of Alakanandaswamymath. It was also asserted that the claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,75,000 was on higher side and excessive. The respondent No. 5 also filed objections alleging that the claim was highly excessive and that it is wrong to say that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of car No. MEU 5556. The respondent No. 5 alleged that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and respondent No. 1, was not found responsible. Respondent no. 6, in his objections asserted that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the car and it denied its liability. It is alleged that the car was being driven slowly on correct side and but so far as lorry is concerned it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.