RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. NO. 3. 1ST FLOOR, NORTH WING, MANDI PLAZA, ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE, NOW AT NO. 28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 Vs. MUTHAIAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the death of Dasaiah @ Bukkadaiah in a motor vehicle accident. The facts reveal that on 24.11.2008 at about 7.30 p.m. when Dasaiah was crossing the road near Kenchanaguppe Cross, B.M. Road, Ramanagara Taluk, the driver of Tata Car bearing registration No. KA -05/M -9262 driving in rash and negligent manner came and hit Dasaiah, thereby he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The claimants being his sons and daughters have filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation for the loss of dependency and on other conventional heads.

(2.) THE claim of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was contested by the appellant and during the enquiry, claimant No. 3 was examined as P.W. 1 and got. marked the documents Exs.P -1 to P -8. The Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the materials on record held actionable negligent on the part of the driver of the ear and assessing the income of the deceased at. Rs. 3,000/ - and deducting 1/4th for personal expenses, granted compensation of Rs. 2,97,000/ - towards loss of dependency and Rs. 25,000/ - on conventional heads, in all granted a sum of Rs. 3,22,000/ with interest at 6%. The appellant aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded has filed this appeal seeking the reduction.

(3.) THE points that arise for my consideration are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2. Whether it requires any reduction?5. Though the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/ - despite the fact that all the claimants who are the sons and daughters have attained the age of majority and the cause title itself reveals that the sons are aged 35, 30 and 21 years respectively, whereas the daughter is aged 26 years. Hence, I think that as the claimants had attained the age of majority, the possibility of their dependency on the income of the deceased is very meager. Therefore. I think it is just and proper to consider the deduction for personal expenses at 50% of the earning of the deceased, thereby the net compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 11 = Rs. 1,98,000/ -. In addition, the claimants are entitled to additional sum of Rs. 25,000/ - on conventional heads. Hence the total compensation payable would be Rs. 2,23,000/ - with interest at 6%. Therefore I answer point No. 1 in the negative and point No. 2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, the compensation payable to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 (claimants) shall be Rs. 2,23,000/ - with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till payment. So far as apportionment of the compensation is concerned, tile order of the Tribunal is maintained. The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.