GURUSWAMY, S/O S. SUBBAIAH AND PAVITHRA, D/O GURUSWAMY Vs. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., R.O. 44/45, RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD. LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX BANGALORE -25 BY ITS MANAGER AND K. SALEEM KHAN, S/O KADARMYDEEN MAJOR, R/A NO. 14, SOUTH MUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 1.3.2008 passed in MVC No. 7278/2006 on the file of XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH No. 15), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 5.22,000/ - with interest; at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have presented this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement. The brief facts of the ease are: Appellants No. 1 and 2 are the parents and appellant No. 3 is the sister of the deceased. It is the case of the appellants that on 23.8.2006 at about 8.45 p.m when deceased Rajkumar was travelling as a pillion rider ridden by one Prakash on Outer Ring road near Devarabeesanahalli Junction road, Bangalore, a lorry bearing registration No. TN -60 -3232 came in a rash and negligent, manner and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which Rajkumar suffered grievous injuries and lateron succumbed to the same. Appellants submit that the as on the date of accident, the deceased Rajkumar was working as a Software Engineer at Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. earning salary of Rs. 33,366/ -p.m. On account of untimely death of the deceased, the appellants filed a claim petition as referred above. The Tribunal after assessing oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material on file, taking into consideration the age and status of the deceased and source of income, allowed the claim petition in part awarding Rs. 5,22,000/ - with 6% interest from the date of petition till realisation.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the first respondent -Insurance Company for considerable length of time.

(3.) AS against this, learned counsel for the first respondent -insurer interalia contended that the Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence has awarded just and reasonable compensation and hence, the same is in accordance with law and does not call for interference.