R RAMALAKSHMI Vs. S MANJUNATHA PRASANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate appeal by the parents of the deceased for enhancement of the compensation against the impugned judgment and award dtd. 21/11/2013 made in MVC No.100/2012 on the file of the MACT Lingasugur sitting at Sindhanur, awarding the compensation of Rs.3,81,000.00 with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till realization.

(2.) It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 5/11/2011 at about 9.30 p.m. their son Suryachandra Reddy was travelling in the Tipper Lorry Cabin bearing registration No.KA-16/6674. The respondent No.1 was driving the said Tipper. The vehicle belongs to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 is insurance company. The deceased was working as a driver of Hitachi belongs to one Polareddy. The said Hitachi was loaded on Tipper to attending excavation work of Bettle nut garden of one Channabasappa of Yarganal village, Shimoga District, Near Yeragnal village, on Kanvi road the respondent No.1 drove the tipper in a speed rash and negligent manner. All of sudden Hitachi vehicle loaded on the tipper came in contact with high tension electricity wire. As a result, Suryachandra Reddy sustained grievous burn injuries due to electrocuted. Immeditately he was shifted to Meggan hospital, Shivmogga, thereafter shifted to Wenlock hospital Mangalore. During the course of treatment he died on 15/11/2011. The deceased was earning Rs.15,000.00 per month from the job of Hitachi driver was maintaining his family. He was the only earning member of the family. Due to his death the claimants are put to financial set back, mental shock and agony. Therefore, prays for compensation of Rs.20,00,000.00.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed the written statement. The respondent No.2 filed memo adopting the same. The respondent No.3 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition in respect of name, address, age, occupation, cause of accident, death, income of deceased, loss of income etc. It is also denied that the deceased was driver of Hitachi and it is stated that on the day of the accident the respondent No.1 was driving the tipper. He was loaded with Hitachi vehicle and going towards yaraganal village. The deceased was sitting the tipper cabin. The respondent No.1 was driving the tipper in slow manner and observing traffic rules. All of the sudden the Hitachi loaded on the tipper cart with fire and Suryachandra Reddy sustained burn injuries. The tipper lorry and Hitachi vehicle completely burned away from the said accident. The alleged accident occurred on fault of electricity department who had left the wire near to earth endangering to human life and the amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and speculative and it is also stated that the deceased Suryachandra Reddy was taken alcohol and sitting in the Hitachi vehicle which loaded on the tipper. He was not taken proper care and due to the same the accident was occurred. The electricity board is necessary party and there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.