JAHIRABI Vs. V S SIDDALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28. 1. 1994 delivered by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal (the Principal district Judge), Shimoga, whereby Claims tribunal has awarded in total a sum of rs. 60,800 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation of entire amount with costs.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that, as per the finding recorded on issue no. 1 that, on 23. 5. 1988 at about 7. 30 p. m. deceased Kalligudi, Head Constable, with siddalingappa, Police Sub Inspector, was moving on a motor cycle from Karnagiri towards Hosanagar and the deceased was the pillion rider and the motor cycle in question bearing registration No. CAG 7512 was being driven by Siddalingappa, respondent No. 1, According to the claimants' case, on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1, Siddalingappa, the motor cycle dashed against the side stone, viz. , guard-stone of the road near Kallahallada Bridge, Kalligudi sustained serious injuries and died while he was being taken to the hospital. The Tribunal found that the cause of accident was proved to be rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the respondent No. 1. After having recorded this finding, dealing with the question of assessment of compensation to be awarded, the Tribunal found that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 52 years. The Tribunal further opined that the deceased, no doubt, was getting a monthly salary of rs. 1,856. The Tribunal further observed that the claimant/appellant No. 1 was also getting the family pension of Rs. 600 per month and after the death of her husband in the accident, the claimant No. 1, i. e. , the appellant No. 1 had been paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards gratuity and other benefits. Taking all these into considera-tion, the Tribunal opined that from the sum of Rs. 1,856, the amount of family pension which the claimant was awarded has to be deducted and on that basis, the tribunal found that the amount of salary now comes to Rs. 1,256. The Tribunal fur-ther opined that from this amount of salary, a sum of Rs. 400 has to be deducted being the personal expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself and thereafter it recorded a finding that loss of dependency comes to Rs. 850 per month, i. e. , monthly loss of dependency and found that yearly loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,200. It applied the multiplier of 9 and arrived at the conclusion that the loss of dependency can be said to be rs. 91,800. The Tribunal further opined that the claimant is entitled to a sum of rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses and obsequies and awarded a further sum of rs. 4,000 towards loss of consortium. Adding these amounts together it opined that it works out to Rs. 1,00,800. The Tri-bunal opined that as the claimant No. 1, pw 1, has admitted that subsequent to the death of her husband she was paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards gratuity and other benefits, this amount of Rs. 40,000 has to be deducted from the said amount of rs. 1,00,800 and after making that deduction, the Tribunal held that the claimant/ petitioner, i. e. , the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 60,800 in total as compensation. The Tribunal held that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as 4 are jointly liable to pay the said amount. It further held that there is a coverage of deceased who is a third party and the petitioners have proved that K. G. I. D. had also covered the risk of pillion rider and as such, the K. G. I. D. is also liable.

(3.) FEELING dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants/ petitioners have come up before this court by filing the appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is analogous to section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988.