PARVATHI Vs. MAHANTAPPA BANASODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal coming on for admission is considered for final disposal. Shri Sanjay M Joshi having been directed to take notice for respondent No. 2, seeks time to file his vakalat. He is permitted to file his vakalath in due course. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Sanjay Joshi, at length, and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the appeal is disposed of finally.

(2.) THE appellants are claiming enhancement of compensation on the footing that Devendrappa, the husband of the first appellant has died as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 05.08.2008 at 7.30 PM while going on his motor cycle on Sedam road, near GDA Colony, Veerendra Patil Nagar, Gulbarga. A Maruti car coming from the opposite direction had dashed against the motor cycle of Devendrappa and it was alleged that it was car which was the offending vehicle. Devendrappa had sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to hospital and thereafter, on his discharge, he WAs again admitted to hospital at Hyderabad and when he was being brought to Gulbarga from Hyderabad, he is said to have dead. In this circumstance, compensation was claimed alleging that Devendrappa was earning about Rs. 15,000/ - per month from agricultural operations and that the appellants were all dependant on his income. The matter was contested by the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the offending vehicle and it is after contest on merits, that the Tribunal has passed judgment and award, awarding a compensation of Rs. 7,24,052/ - with interest thereon at 6% per annum. However, the present appeal is filed claiming that the Tribunal has adopted the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/ - per month, when the accident was of the year 2008 and since the Tribunal had disbelieved the actual earning of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/ -, the amount adopted is on the lower side, whereas even if there was no evidence as regards the income of an agricultural labourer, it was a minimum of Rs. 4,500/ - during the said period and therefore the same could be adopted which would lead to some enhancement of the compensation. Further it is stated that 1/3rd of the notional income has been deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased whereas it ought to have been 1/4th and if these factors are taken into account, the compensation would slightly increase and it is on those primary grounds that the present appeal is filed.

(3.) HOWEVER , on two grounds, namely, that the minimum income adopted at Rs. 4,000/ - in respect of an agricultural labourer in the year 2008 is on the lower side as the income during that period is certainly more than Rs. 4,000/ - and hence if Rs. 4,500/ - is adopted it would be reasonable. Further if the deduction made is restricted to 1/4th instead of 1/3rd there is a marginal increase in the total compensation that is awarded. Therefore, adopting Rs. 4,500/ - as the monthly income attributable to the deceased while deducting 1/4th of the said amount for computing compensation, the appellants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,10,448/ - with interest thereon at 6% from the date of petition. The delay in filing the appeal being substantial, though was condoned by order dated 30.08.2013, is compensated by denial of interest for the said period on the compensation that is now awarded.