PARVATHIBAI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of deceased venkatesh Rao, dissatisfied with the award of compensation in M. V. C. No. 10/2003 by judgment and award dated 4. 6. 2005 of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, SCCH-7 (for short 'mact'), have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that in an accident that occurred on 5. 10. 2002 involving a motor vehicle, Venkatesh Rao, aged 42 succumbed to grievous injuries leaving behind the 1st and 2nd appellants as his legal heirs who made a claim for Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'act' ). The claim was resisted by the 1st respondent - Insurance Company, the insurer to the offending motor vehicle, by filing Statement of objections. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed issues, recorded the evidence of the 1st appellant as PW-1 and another eye-witness by name N. V. Raghavan as PW-2 and marked 7 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-7 while for the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was tendered. The MACT, having regard to the material on record, the evidence both oral and documentary and applying the principles laid down by a Division bench of this Court, in A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, ilr 2004 Kar 3268, awarded Rs. 63,000/- for loss to estate, to which was added Rs. 7,000/- for obsequies and funeral ceremonies, totalling to rs. 70,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, by the impugned judgment and award.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contends that the MACT was not justified in not awarding compensation for loss of dependency since the 2nd claimant, an unmarried sister, was dependent on the income of the deceased. It is next contended that there was no justification for the mact to reckon 15% as the savings of the deceased from out of the income of Rs. 2,500/- per month, to award Rs. 63,000/- for loss of estate. In addition, it is contended that the MACT was not justified in awarding inadequate compensation under conventional heads. Lastly it is contended that the deceased succumbed to injuries after five days of the accident while as an in-patient in Victoria Hospital, entitled to compensation for medical expenses.