SHOBHA Vs. H.G. CHETHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 25.06.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) at Nelamangala in MVC No.53/2014, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.14,16,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2013 at about 7.00 p.m., one Shivakumar was standing in front of Karle Factory to cross the road, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-13-A-7551 came from Nelamangala towards Hassan driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Shivakumar. Consequently, he sustained injuries all over the body and head injury. Immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nelamangala and then, shifted to Nimhans Hospital, Bengaluru. Thereafter, for further treatment, he was admitted in Health India Hospital and there he was operated. He was inpatient for a period of 2 1/2 months and succumbed to the injuries in the Health India Hospital, Bengaluru on 14.09.2013. The claimants, who are wife, children and mother of the deceased Shivakumar have filed a claim petition before the MACT, Nelamangala in MVC No.53/2014. To establish their case, they have examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 130 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.130. On the other hand, respondent-Insurance company neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.14,16,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants/appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Sri. Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that at the time of the accident, deceased was aged about 42 years. He was doing contractor work and was earning Rs.20,000/-per month. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. Secondly, he has contended that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while assessing the notional income of the deceased. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on the lower side. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon"?ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thirdly, he has contended that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, parents are entitled for filial consortium and children are entitled for parental consortium. Therefore, he sought for enhancement of the compensation.