VEENAKSHI, W/O. LATE MANJEGOWDA Vs. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SRINIVASA COMPLEX, ANANTHASHAYANA ROAD, KARKALA-574 104. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. KA-18, B-7777) AND JEEVANDAS ADHYANTHAYA, S/O. LATE N.S. ADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimants is directed against the common judgment and award dated 8th September 2008, passed in MVC No. 2016/2006 (old MVC. No. 186/2002), by the Presiding Officer, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court -I, Hassan, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,03,500/ - awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 10,00,000/ -, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife and claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children of deceased Manjegowda. They filed the claim petition under Section );">166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 2:30 AM, on 25/26 -10 -2001, when the deceased was driving his autorickshaw bearing Registration No. CNH -8586 along with his wife Veenakshi and daughters to return to his house near Doddagenigere cross, B.M. Road, Kenchattahalli, at that time, the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No. KA -18/B -7777 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Auto and caused the accident and the auto was completely damaged and the deceased sustained grievous injuries to head and other vital parts of the body and the deceased died on the way to the Hospital.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 32 years and was running an Autorickshaw, earning a sum of Rs. 200/ - per day and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the first appellant has lost her life partner, the children have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and all the claimants have lost the social and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.

(3.) I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellants and also the Insurer, for quite some time.