KAVITHA AND ORS. Vs. M. MAHESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the claimants, being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 27th April 2011 passed in M.V.C. No. 640/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court -I and Additional M.A.C.T., Mysore. The Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and Award, awarded a sum of Rs. 26,74,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization on account of the death of deceased Bandu Vagmode in the road traffic accident, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the claimants/appellants are that, the appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased. They have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation against the respondents contending that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was the only bread earning member in the family. It is the case of the claimants that on 18.07.2010 at about 1.15 p.m. the deceased was proceeding in his Chetak Scooter bearing Registration No. KA -09/W -7088 towards Bogadi from Government Text Book Press. When he reached near Dhobi Ghat, Bogadi Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysore, at that time, a Maruthi Esteem Car bearing Registration No. KA -01/P -7498 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Scooter. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to B.G.S. Apollo Hospital, Mysore. In spite of giving medical treatment they could not save the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries at about 4.15 p.m. Further, they have contended that the deceased was aged about 46 years and working as Senior Technician in B.E.M.L. and drawing salary of Rs. 25,000/ - per month. On account of untimely death of deceased Bandu Vagmode, his wife has lost her life partner at the young age and the minor children have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance of their father.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset that, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under the head loss of dependency and also conventional heads. To substantiate the same, he submitted that as per the decision reported in : 2013 ACJ 1403 another 30% income of the deceased should be added towards future prospects as the deceased was working as Senior Technician in BEML drawing salary as per Ex. P9. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal also erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation.