NAGANNA Vs. JAFFAR SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The appellants are the widower and the children of the deceased Jagadevi. It is claimed that while appellant no. 1 and Jagadevi, the deceased wife of appellant no. 1 were walking home after work and when they were near their house on the Gulbarga-Humnabad Highway, a vehicle, known as 'turn turn' bearing no. KA-38/3015, driven in a rash and negligent manner is said to have dashed against Jagadevi and she had sustained grievous injuries and had died on the spot. It was claimed that Jagadevi was employed as an agricultural labourer and was earning more than Rs. 4,500/- per month and it is on that basis that a claim for compensation was lodged. The respondents were the driver of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle. The driver remained ex parte while the owner and the insurer contested the claim petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants would point out that the income that has been adopted in computing the total loss of dependency is abysmally low. Though the accident was of the year 2006, the deceased was earning sufficiently more than Rs. 4,500/- per month and hence, it was unjust in restricting the income to Rs. 100/- per day on the basis of certain observations made in decisions of the year 2001 and 2002, which are referred to in the course of the judgment. On the other hand, the apex court has recently taken a view that the contribution of a house wife is immeasurable in terms of the services rendered to her family and therefore, a substantial amount should be attributed as the contribution of a house wife. In the present case on hand, not only was the deceased a house wife, but was also an agricultural labourer and therefore, there was justification in adopting a larger amount as the income of the deceased. There has been aberration in not adopting the appropriate income for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. In so far as the conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has, again, proceeded in a mechanical fashion in awarding Rs. 5,000/- each under the several heads. This again is not realistic and does not address the justification in restricting the compensation to Rs. 5,000/- under each head.