KAVITHA Vs. NINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellants who are the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No.210/2017, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that Sri Pampapathi Rao alias Pampapathi Gowda alias Pampapathi, the husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant No.2 and son of appellant No.3 was proceeding in his car bearing Reg.No.KA-36/N-1444 on 27.10.2016, whence he met with a motor vehicle accident at about 8.10 p.m. As a result, Pampapathi sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The Tribunal has arrived at conclusion that the motor vehicle accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-17/F-1307, belonging to the second respondent - Corporation. The appellants claim that the deceased was working as a Manager-cum-partner of M/s. Jyoti Filling Station, Potnal and on the assessment of the documentary evidence, such as, income tax returns, record of rights, audit reports, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.27,722/- per month.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the appellants herein had produced the record of rights to show that the deceased was owning about 7 acres of land and was having agricultural income. But inspite of the documentary evidence having been produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has refused to accept the contention that the deceased was also earning agricultural income. Learned counsel would further point out from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that though there were agricultural lands in the name of the deceased as well as his mother, it cannot be accepted that the deceased himself was cultivating, but he must have taken the services of labourers and therefore a sum of Rs.5,000/- was added towards the income and therefore the monthly income of the deceased was taken at Rs.27,722/-. The learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has not awarded anything towards loss of future prospects.