SHARADA Vs. HUCHAPPA CHALUVADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEL lants, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M. V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation of rs. 16,60,368/- from the respondents due to the death of one Bandayya Swamy in a road traffic accident. Claim petition was contested by respondents. After holding enquiry under Section 168 of the M. V. Act, Tribunal has passed judgment holding that the deceased has died due to sustaining of injuries in the accident, which occurred on 28-4-2003, due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer by its driver, that the same was an actionable wrong and the appellants are entitled to be compensated. Consequently it has awarded Rs. 5. 59,792/- as compensation with interest. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, this appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement.

(2.) SRI F. S. Dabali, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, tribunal has erred in computing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, even though there was no dispute with regard to gross salary of the deceased, who was a government Servant, drawing Rs. 11,331/- per month, on the date of the accident, proved by production of salary certificate Ex. P. 6. He contended that deceased who was working as a driver in the Agricultural Department of the government of Karnataka had good prospect of promotions would have fetched higher salary and emoluments, apart from increments and upward revision of pay scales. He contended that. Tribunal has erred in calculating the age of the deceased as 46 years, by relying on the post mortem report Ex. P4, instead of taking the actual age of the deceased who was a Government servant and who was less than 43 years at the time of the accident. He contended that, Tribunal has erred in assessing salary of deceased and by applying the multiplier of 13, which is on lower side. He contended that, the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on lower side.

(3.) PER contra, Sri A. N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent insurance Company contended that, Tribunal is justified in reckoning income of deceased which is reflected in Ex. P6 and the age, from the post mortem report, for the purpose of determination of the loss of dependency and tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. He contended that, Tribunal is justified in taking net income of the deceased into consideration, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asha v. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004 (1) ACC 533 ).