MEENAKSHI Vs. D RAJASHEKARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 arises out of the judgment and award dated 31-5-1990 in m. v. c. No. 308 of 1995. According to the claimant's case on 5-9-1985 a matador accident had taken place at about 8. 30 a. m. viz. , the accident in which the matador van bearing No. Cng. 9229 which was being used to transport the goods from shimoga to agumbe. When it was proceeding between gajanur village and gajanur dam, a lorry bearing No. Myy 5437 driven by Sri a. g. gajendra came from the opposite direction and collided with the matador van. The owner of matador died on the spot, and other 3 persons sustained injuries and the injured persons also made claim petitions. The owner of the matador who died on the spot, his mother-the appellant filed the claim petition which was numbered as 308 of 1985 impleading the respondents as parties in that case. The tribunal after framing the issues tried the matter and on the basis of the circumstantial and oral evidences found that accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver as per paragraph 11 of the decision of the tribunal. Dealing with the claim of the claimants/appellants who had claimed compensation with reference to the death of chandrashekara hebbar, the motor accidents claims tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimant on the deceased to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 8 it assessed the dependency of the claimant of the deceased at Rs. 48,000/ -. The tribunal thereafter opined that a sum of Rs. 18,000/- is to be deducted from that quantum of Rs. 48,000/ -. The deduction was indicated to be made for on account of lump sum payments and after making that deduction of Rs. 18,000/- the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 30,000/ -. The tribunal awarded the interest at the rate of 9% on that amount from the date of filing the petition. No doubt the other injured persons had also filed the claim petitions. The claim petitions have also been allowed in part. I am not aware whether the others have filed the appeal, or not. For the present this appeal is confined to the claim made by the mother of the deceased i. e. , the owner of the matador, this claim petition was numbered as m. v. c. No. 308 of 1995. The appellant felt aggrieved from the order and the award as they have not been awarded proper compensation as-well-as the deduction was illegally made from the amounts assessed as tentative figure.

(2.) I have heard Sri p. s. manjunath as-well-as Sri b. c. seetharama rao-learned counsels for petitioner and 3rd respondent respectively.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Sri manjunath submitted that the dependency figure has not been properly fixed and determined. He further submitted that the tribunal had held that the claimant had been dependent on agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 500/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that when it was held it had not taken into account that the deceased was the only son and had died in the accident and it was he who used to manage the cultivation etc. The claimant may have to make arrangements and to take assistance of service of some third persons for which she may have to pay and as such at the most she can be said to be dependent on agriculture for a sum of Rs. 250/- per month but as per her statement a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month was her monthly requirement and therefore the dependency on her son's income should have been assessed at least at Rs. 750/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he does not wish to challenge the 8 years multiplier. He further submitted that the court below was not justified in making a deduction of Rs. 18,000/- towards the lump-sum payment or for lump-sum payments. Mr. Majunath further contended that no compensation has been awarded with reference to the amount incurred for funeral expenses and at least a sum of Rs. 3,000/- should have been allowed.