PAGUNTAMMA AND ORS. Vs. SHIVARAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the appellants/claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2011 passed by the MACT, Raichur, in MVC No. 255/2010.

(2.) BY the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/ - wife interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The liability is apportioned in the ratio of 50% between the respondents 1 to 3 and the respondents 4 and 5. Aggrieved by that, the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has erred in apportioning the liability between the respondents 1 to 3 and the respondents 4 and 5. The deceased was traveling in the jeep. He has not contributed anything for the accident. Therefore, it was a composite negligence. The drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in apportioning the liability between the respondents 1 to 3 and the respondents 4 and 5. The Tribunal should have fastened fee liability on all the respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : 2014 (4) SCJ 354 (Pawan Kumar and another Etc. v. M/s. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and others) and : ILR 2004 KAR 26 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, by its Managing Director vs. Arun @ Aravind and Others) Further, he submitted that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 125/ - per day which is not correct. The deceased was earning Rs. 200/ - per day. Further, he submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also inadequate. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified.