NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. B AYYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3, who are the husband and children of B. Suseela (the deceased), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short - 'the Act'), seeking a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- alleging that the deceased died in an accident that occurred on 24. 2. 2004 at about 11. 50 p. m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper bearing No. AP-36 720 belonging to the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant. 4th respondent chose to remain ex parte before the Tribunal and this Court also. Appellant, after taking permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 of the act, filed a counter contesting the claim of respondents 1 to 3. In support of their case, respondents 1 to 3 examined two witnesses as PWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A4. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant but Ex. B. 1 copy of the insurance policy was marked by consent. The tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper belonging to the 4th respondent, awarded Rs. 2,73,500/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 3. Aggrieved thereby, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident preferred this appeal.

(2.) INASMUCH as the appellant is questioning the quantum of compensation only, the point for consideration is to what compensation are the respondents 1 to 3 entitled to ?

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that, inasmuch as the deceased was 5 years younger to her husband i. e. , the first respondent, the tribunal was in error in taking the age of the deceased instead of taking the age of her husband into consideration for fixing the multiplier and its failure to keep in view the fact that respondents 2 and 3 are the grown up son and daughter, and hence cannot be said to be dependants on the earnings of the deceased resulted in its passing an award for higher amount than that is just and proper.