SHARANABASAPPA SHANMUKHAPPA ITAGI AND SMT. SHARANAVVA Vs. YALLAPPA PARASAPPA ITAGI AND NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No. 23/2001, dated 01.09.2007 by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Dharwad have filed this appeal. seeking enhancement of the compensation. Appellants are the parents of the deceased. They filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of their son in the road traffic accident occurred on 01 -11 -1996 on P.B. Road, near Gandhinagar, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods Tempo bearing registration No. KA -29/1200. In the claim petition, it was contended that the deceased was studying in final year B.A. and also doing part time work in BEE's company and getting salary of Rs. 1,500/ - p.m. and also conducting tuition classes to the 7th to 10th standard students and earning Rs. 1,000/ - p.m. The claimants at their old age have lost their son. Hence, they sought for compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/ -.

(2.) THE respondents entered appearance and filed objections contending that due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, he died on Pune -Bangalore road, the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

(3.) SRI . Dayanand M. Bandi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the judgment and award passed by the court below is contrary to law. The claim petition filed was under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the court below assessed the compensation under Section 166A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is contrary to law. The court below has not followed the structured formula. The standard deduction has to be made to an extent of 1/3 and multiplier has to be applied taking into consideration the age of the deceased. Further, the denial of interest for a period of five years is contrary to law. There is no default on the part of the claimants. The sitting of the Judge was not there in that court. In view of that, the matter was dragged on and there is no role of the claimants in dragging the matter. Hence sought for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the court below and to award appropriate compensation, by allowing the appeal.