A. DEEPIKA Vs. NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants who were the claimant Nos.1 to 3 respectively in MVC No.100/2016 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Tribunal'), being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them, which was totally in a sum of Rs.9,29,000.00 with interest thereupon at 6% per annum, have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation as dependants of deceased Hanumantha @ Hanamant.

(2.) The contention of the claimants in the Tribunal was that, deceased Hanumantha S/o Basavarajappa who was the husband of claimant No.1 (appellant No.1 herein) and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 (appellant Nos.2 and 3 herein) and also the son of respondent No.3 (Smt. A. Basamma) was working as a driver in M/s. Swastik Steel Limited at Hospet. On the date 8/5/2015, the deceased being the driver of the motor vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA14/A-0138 belonging to the above said Company, after unloading the cargo at a place called Hampapattana, was returning to Hospet via Hagari Bommanahalli. At about 9.00 p.m. on the National Highway No.13, near Smairo Factory at Galemma Gudi village of Hospet taluk, the motor vehicle lorry bearing Reg.No.MP-09/HH-0393 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner coming from the opposite side, dashed to the lorry which was being driven by the deceased and due to the said road traffic accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries to head and limbs and died on the spot, in which regard a police complaint was also lodged in Mariyammanahalli police station against the driver of the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.MP-09/HH-0393 in Crime No.54/2015. The claimants further stated that the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000.00 per month as salary which was excluding his daily bhata. He was contributing his entire income towards the family and he was the sole earning member in the family. All the claimants were depending upon his income. Stating that due to the death of the deceased, the claimants have no source for their livelihood, they claim a total compensation of a sum of Rs.28,53,000.00 together with interest at the rate of 18% thereupon from the respondents, which included the owner of both the vehicle and the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle.

(3.) Respondent No.2 in the Tribunal appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objection. Though respondent No.2 admitted the occurrence of the accident, but denied that the accident was with the fault of the alleged offending vehicle. It also denied its liability towards the compensation. It was only the claimants who led their evidence wherein two witnesses including claimant No.1 were examined as PW-1 and PW-2, documents from Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. From the respondents' side the Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R-1. However, no oral evidence was led from the respondents' side.