MANIYAPPA Vs. P NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ganesh (deceased), son of the appellant/petitioner, while travelling as a pillion-rider on TVS 50 bearing registration No. CAT 1296, sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed, on account of an accident caused to said vehicle, by the driver of goods tempo bearing registration No. KA.07/1546, which belonged to the respondent. The said goods tempo vehicle was insured by the 2nd respondent. Ganesh was unmarried. He left behind him, his parents as his only heirs and legal representatives. A claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) stating loss of dependency. The petition was contested by the respondents. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed. Father of the deceased, while deposing as PW1 has stated that his deceased son was aged 25 years as on the date of accident; was employed and was earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and was maintaining the family. PW2 was examined to prove employment and the earning of deceased Ganesh. 10 documents produced by the petitioners were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. Respondents did not lead any evidence. After appreciating the evidence on record with reference to the rival contentions, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held, deceased Ganesh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, which took place on 1.4,2004 due to rash and negligent driving by driver of goods tempo bearing registration No. KA.07/1546 and parents of the deceased, are entitled to be awarded compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. The Tribunal took income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m., and determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,92,000/-, by applying the multiplier of '8'. l/3rd was deducted from the said amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved, the parents of the deceased filed this appeal, for increase of compensation amount to Rs.5,00,000/- with interest.

(2.) Sri A. Sreenivasaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend:

(3.) Sri S. Srishaila, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance Company, on the other hand, would contend that: