S MARY KUTTY, W/O LATE KUNJACHAN, NO. 105, GOVINDA REDDY BUILDING, OPP; GOVT. SCHOOL, NAKKUNDI, VIMANAPURA POST, BANGALORE, SMT PRASANNAMMA MARY@ SHINY D/O LATE KUNJACHAN, SMT SUNITHA D/O LATE KUNJACHAN AND SMT SALI D/O LATE KUNJACHAN Vs. SHRI N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimants is directed against the common judgment and award dated 20.6.2006 passed in MVC No. 564/02 on the file of the VII Addl. Judge, Member MACT -3, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (for short, Tribunal), The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,65,096/ - with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of deceased Kunjachan, on account of his death in a road traffic accident. The claimants have presented this appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as inadequate and fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is higher side and therefore the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to he modified. Appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the daughters of deceased Kunjachan.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellants -claimants that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and he was a permanent employee, working as an Engineer in KPTCL and was drawing gross salary of Rs. 12,598/ - p.m. and was aged about 49 years at the time of accident. They contended that due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost their social and economic security and their life has been jeopardised. Therefore, they are constrained to file the claim petition against the respondents -owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other material, taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased, has allowed the claim petition in part, fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle (deceased) and 50% on the part of driver of the bus. Being dissatisfied with the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal seeking enhancement and to set -aside the contributory negligence.

(3.) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent insurer interalia substantiated the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by contending that the Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material on the file, specifically the mahazar and the sketch, is justified in fixing contributory negligence at 50% each on the rider of the motor cycle and the driver of the bus. The learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the bus involved in the accident is a heavy vehicle and the motor cycle is a light vehicle and this aspect ought to have been taken note of by the Tribunal He further concedes with the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case that towards future prospects of the deceased at 30% is to be added to his gross income for calculating loss of dependency.