J KARPAGAM Vs. V MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by the lower Court in M.C.O.P.No.1169 of 1999 dated 18.06.2002, preferred by the second respondent Insurance Company. For convenient sake the ranking of the parties before the lower Court are referred in this Judgment also.

(2.) THE brief facts relied upon by both parties before the Lower Court are as follows:(i) On 03.01.1999 at about 9.30 p.m while the deceased was walking along Thiruvottiyur High Road proceeding near Lakshmi Amman Koil Bus Stop, an Auto Rickshaw bearing Regn. No.TN-04-Y-3976 belonged to the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased succumbed to injuries and admitted in the hospital. THE first claimant is the wife, second and third claimants are the sons of the deceased. THE deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident and was working as loading and unloading maistry, earned Rs.10,000/- to Rs.13,000/- per month. Hence a total sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.(ii) In the Counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated that as the accident was solely due to the careless and unmindful act of the deceased who suddenly darted across the road. THE age, avocation and income of the deceased are to be proved. THE claimants are also put to strict proof that they are legal heirs of the deceased. In any event the compensation claimed is very excessive and speculative.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit in his argument that the deceased was working as Maistry of loading and unloading of goods and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But however, the lower Court had come to a conclusion that the deceased Jayapal was doing loading work and was earning a sum of Rs.100/- per day for 22 days in a month and he was earning a sum of Rs.2,200/- per month towards his exercise as Loadman. He would further submit in his arguments that the lower court had wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the contribution after fixing the contribution to the claimants from out of the said monthly income of Rs.2,200/- He would further submit that the claimants being three persons would have more dependency and the dependency should have been fixed at 75% and deduction towards maintenance of the deceased should have been at 25% from out of the monthly income of deceased and the claimants dependancy should have been fixed accordingly.