CHANDRALEKHA GANESH TOGARSI Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals respectively by the parents of deceased and the wife and minor child of deceased are directed against the common judgment and award dated 13th July 2010, passed in MVC Nos.2485/2009 & 3492/2009, by the XVIII Additional Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-4), (for short, 'Tribunal' ).

(2.) While the parents of deceased Basavaraj Togarsi have filed M.F.A.No.1737/2011, seeking re5 apportionment of the compensation awarded by Tribunal at 80% in favour of the wife and minor child and 20% in favour of the parents, on the ground that it is inadequate, the wife and minor child have filed M.F.A.No.9426/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 14,70,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimants as against the claim made is inadequate.

(3.) Shri.K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel appearing for the parents of the deceased in M.F.A.No.1737/2011 vehemently submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation for the untimely death of the deceased and the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- per month is on the lower side and liable to be re-assessed, for the reason that as per Ex.P15, the deceased was appointed as Assistant Manager (Sales) in a Private Limited Company, offering a salary of Rs. 7,07,100/- per annum. But unfortunately, he died after completion of just one month service, on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Therefore, he submits that the income of the deceased may be re-determined and reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency as also under conventional heads. Further, he vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in apportioning the compensation in the ratio of 80:20, i.e. 80% in favour of the wife and minor child of deceased and 20% in favour of the parents of deceased, when in fact, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the compensation at least in the ratio of 50:50, in the interest of justice and equity. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by re-determining and re-apportioning the compensation.