LAWS(KAR)-2014-11-290

UPPAR THAYANNA Vs. B. GOPAL

Decided On November 27, 2014
Uppar Thayanna Appellant
V/S
B. Gopal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants (appellants herein) are before the Court, having dissatisfied with the quantum of the award passed by the M.A.C.T.VII at Hospet, in MVC No. 1139/2008. The respondent No. 1 herein is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AP -2/U -7192 and the second respondent is the Insurance Company indemnified the liability of the first respondent. The notice to respondent No. 1 was dispensed with by this Court, vide order dated 2 -7 -2014.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri. Y. Lakshimikant Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Nagraj C. Kolloori for R2 -Insurance Company.

(3.) THE appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased by name Uppar Devendrappa have claimed the compensation. It is a case that on 29/7/2008, at about 4.30am, near SJK Steel Plant on Tadlpathri -Cuddapah road, the deceased met with an accident, he was hit by a lorry, bearing its registration No. AP -2/U -7192, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The said lorry is being owned by the first respondent herein. It is the contention that the deceased was working as a cleaner and earning Rs. 4,500/ - per month, as a salary and Rs. 100/ - as bata per day. Therefore, the claimants have claimed that his monthly income was Rs. 7,500/ -. But, the trial Court has taken the income as Rs. 3,000/ - per month and deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Further, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the monthly income of the deceased taken by the trial Court was very meager. The trial Court should have taken at least Rs. 7,000/ - per month. The learned Counsel also contended that the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. But, the trial Court has taken the age of the youngest of the parents of the deceased and calculated the annual income with the multiplier of '15' and awarded only Rs. 2,70,000/ - towards the loss of dependency, which is also erroneous. He also contended that the trial Court, in all, awarded an amount of Rs. 28,000/ - on other conventional heads, which is also very meager, when compare to the circumstances of this particular case. Hence, he requested the Court to enhance the compensation.