DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NEELAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A. No. 24590 of 2011 is by the Insurance Company aggrieved by an award passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti (for short, 'the Tribunal'), directing payment of compensation amount of Rs. 6,35,000/- with interest to the claimants in MVC No. 1657 of 2010. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed MFA CROB No. 707 of 2013, seeking modification and enhancement of the compensation amount. Sri Fakkirappa Hanamantappa Madar sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 3-6-2010 at about 8.00 p.m. at Saundatti-Dharwad Road, in Inamhongal Village limits. When he was going by the side of the road, to attend nature call, motorcycle bearing No. KA-24/K-1074, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to him. Thereby, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed while under treatment in SDM Medical College and Hospital, on 8-6-2010. His wife and children filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle, for awarding of compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,55,000/-. They pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its owner-cum-rider Devaraddi, S/o. Govindaraddi Venkaraddiyavar and the vehicle had insurance cover.

(2.) The owner-cum-rider and insurer of the offending motorcycle, having entered appearance, filed statement of objections and contested the claim. Based on the pleadings, three issues were raised by the Tribunal. Wife of deceased got herself examined as P.W. 1. Two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3. Exs. P. 1 to P. 38 were marked. For the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. However, driving licence of the rider of the offending motorcycle and the insurance policy of the offending vehicle were marked, with consent, as Exs. R. 1 and R. 2. After noticing the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in the affirmative and held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its owner-cum-rider Devaraddi. While dealing with issue No. 2, the Tribunal adverted to the case of petitioners and finding that the deceased was doing bar bending work, took his income on national basis at Rs. 150/- per day. Since there were four dependants, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and loss of annual dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs. 36,000/-. Age of the deceased was reckoned as 32 years based on the post-mortem report Ex. P. 6 and multiplier of 16 was applied and the total loss of dependency was arrived at Rs. 5,76,000/-. The injured having survived upto 8-6-2010, in view of bills produced with regard to incurring of medical expenses, marked as Exs. P. 16 to P. 35, the same was quantified at Rs. 24,005/-. In addition, the claimants were held entitled to Rs. 35,000/- under the conventional heads i.e., 'loss of estate', 'loss of consortium' and 'funeral and obsequious expenses'. Thus, the claim petition was allowed in part and compensation of Rs. 6,35,005/- was determined which was rounded off to Rs. 6,35,000/-. There being no dispute that the vehicle had the insurance coverage and the rider had valid driving license, both the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 6,35,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till realisation.

(3.) Smt. Sharmila X. Patil, learned Advocate for the Insurance Company, contended that the Tribunal has committed error in treating the deceased as a sub-contractor and reckoning his income at Rs. 150/- per day and quantifying the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,76,000/-. She submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned judgment and award are contrary to the evidence on record of the case and hence, interference is warranted.