DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. FAKKIRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and Shri M.M.Khannur, learned counsel appearing for claimants. By consent of learned advocates, these appeals are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) IT is the contention of Shri M.K.Soudagar that in M.V.C. No.160/2009, Tribunal committed a serious error in construing the dependency of claimants on the basis of income earned by the wife and it cannot be construed in the normal course that husband was dependent on the income of the wife and as such, he submits that deduction of 1/3rd while assessing the compensation payable towards loss of dependency by the Tribunal has been erroneously adopted and awarded. Hence, he seeks for modification of the award. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that multiplier of '17' adopted by the Tribunal is not proper, inasmuch as, age of first daughter being 14 years and even if deceased was construed to have given birth to her first daughter at the age of 19, deceased would be 33 years and as such, Tribunal ought to have adopted, multiplier of 16 and not 17. On these two grounds, he contends that judgment and award passed by Tribunal in M.V.C. No.160/2009 is liable to be modified accordingly.

(3.) HE would further contend that in M.V.C. No.161/2009, Tribunal committed an error in construing disability at 30% when injuries sustained by claimant would indicate that disability cannot be at 30% to the whole body. He would contend even otherwise, when the evidence of Doctor would indicate that limb disability is 85%, Tribunal ought to have taken whole body disability at 20% and assessed the compensation towards loss of future income. Insofar as M.V.C. No.503/2009 is concerned, he would contend that Tribunal without any justification has awarded a global compensation of Rs.20,000/ - towards the damages caused to the vehicle and it is without any evidence whatsoever and hence, it is liable to be quashed and suitable compensation be awarded by this Court.