N M RATHNAMMA Vs. C KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 9.11.2006 passed in M.V.C. No. 916 of 1997 on the file of the Fast Track Court-IV and M.A.C.T., Court of Small Causes, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,98,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on account of death of deceased B.K. Ramaiah in a road accident. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal being inadequate and requiring enhancement, the appellants have presented this appeal. The brief facts of the case are that appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the children of deceased B.K. Ramaiah. They have filed claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 48,41,500 on account of death of deceased Ramaiah in road accident that occurred on 15.4.1997, while he was carrying 46 bags of potato grown in his land for sale at Madras in a mini lorry bearing registration No. TN 09-F 3040 and was accompanying the goods along with others. When the vehicle was proceeding to Madras on NH 4 at about 6 a.m., there was head-on collision between the mini lorry in which the deceased was travelling and Ashok Leyland platform truck bearing registration No. TNG 9969. Due to the impact, B.K. Ramaiah died on the spot.

(2.) It is the case of appellants-claimants that deceased Ramaiah was a leading practising advocate at Hoskote and Bangalore courts and he was also a very progressive agriculturist owning 7 acres of land and coconut garden. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have also lost their social and economic security. The deceased being the sole bread-earner of the family, the appellants have lost the social and financial security. As the appellants were all students and prosecuting their studies, they contend that they do not have any knowledge about agriculture and their life has been jeopardized. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was getting substantial income from his profession as advocate as well as from agriculture totally amounting to Rs. 40,000 p.m. It is further case of the appellants that they have spent reasonable amount for transportation and funeral expenses also. Taking these factors, they have filed claim petition against the respondents. Said matter had come up for consideration before Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material on file, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000 per month and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rs. 4,000 and income is taken at Rs. 8,000 per month and by applying multiplier of '13', a sum of Rs. 12,48,000 is awarded under the head loss of dependency and Rs. 50,000 under the conventional heads. In all, a sum of Rs. 12,98,000 is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) The grounds urged by the appellants in the instant appeal are that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000 p.m. which is on the lower side and the Tribunal ought to have taken at least income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000 from his profession as advocate as well as agriculture and awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.