BANTU Vs. ANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates on both sides.

(2.) This appeal is preferred by the parents of a 17 year old college student by the name of Sudhir who was injured on the evening of 14-12-1989 near Belekeri pursuant to which he died on the spot. The claimants before the Tribunal were the father and mother of the boy. They had pointed out that he was 17 years old, that he was studying in the First Year Diploma Course in the Govt. Polytechnic College, Karwar. They have also submitted that they are agriculturists and that they had virtually sacrificed all that they could for purposes of giving their son a good education and that they were very confident that he would secure a good job shortly thereafter and they were having all their hopes on him. Significantly enough, what they have contended was that they have virtually invested whatever they could afford on the education of the boy and that as a result of his death, not only have they lost everything that they had put in but more importantly their dear son leaving them high and dry as a result of his sudden demise, all their expectation that he would be of support to them in the years to come has been dashed to the ground. It is true that since the deceased was only a college student, that he was admittedly not earning and therefore, that there could be no computation in respect of loss of earnings in the strict sense of the term. I need to add here that the main submission canvassed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants is that this approach of the learned trial Judge was erroneous because he points out, and with some justification, that the boy was virtually on the brink of completing his education and therefore, within the next few years one could reasonably assume that he would secure some good employment, that he would be able to possibly repay his parents all that they had spent on him or at least assist them financially in their old age. This submission of course has been countered by the respondents' learned Advocate who stated that this is virtually within the realm of conjecture insofar as the boy was yet to complete the diploma course and therefore, it was a matter of some years and some more investment before this happened. More importantly, respondents' learned Advocate adverted to the difficult situation on the employment scene and he submitted therefore that one cannot straightway assume that immediately when he walked out of college that he would be able to secure a good job. I shall deal with these rival contentions subsequently.

(3.) The Tribunal after a careful consideration of the matter computed the various heads and held that the parents are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 55,000/- under the main head, in addition to Rs. 3000/- towards funeral and last rites and Rs. 2000/- under the head loss of expectation of hopes. Out of the aggregate of Rs. 60,000/-, 25% was deducted because the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was some contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that consequently the claimants who are his parents would be entitled to Rs. 45,000/-. This appeal is directed against that order and effectively proceeds on the footing that the compensation claimed must be substantially scaled up.