JAYARATHNAMMA Vs. MUKTHIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this appeal are the widow and minor children of one Shanmukhappa. In this appeal, they have called in question the correctness of the judgment and award dated 19th september 1997, made in MVC No. 577/93 by the District Judge and Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as "tribunal") awarding only a sum of Rs. 3,000/towards the death of said Shanmukhappa.

(2.) THE facts in brief:

(3.) SRI Harshavardhan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment and award strongly submitted that the finding recorded by the tribunal that death was not as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident in question is totally perverse, arbitrary and has been recorded in disregard of evidence on record. Elaborating his submission, the learned Counsel pointed out that the evidence of widow of the deceased who was examined as PW-2 shows that immediately after the accident, the deceased was admitted to Government Hospital at Chitradurga and in the said hospital, he was an inpatient for three days and thereafter, he was shifted to Government Medical College Hospital, Bellary and he was an inpatient for about 8 days and he died in the hospital. Therefore, he submits that though the nature of injuries sustained may not outwardly indicate that the injuries sustained are of such serious nature which would have resulted in death of the deceased, according to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record should have taken the view that death had taken place as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident in question. Therefore, the learned Counsel points out that the Tribunal having overlooked this aspect of the matter, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that death was not as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased requires to be reversed in this appeal. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Counsel pointed out that the evidence of PW-2 shows that the deceased was working as a Coolie and his income was Rs. 1,500/- per month. He also pointed out that there is no dispute that the deceased was aged 32 years on the date of the accident and therefore, while assessing the compensation, multiplier of '17' is required to be applied. He also submitted that compensation on emotional head is also required to be awarded.