MANAGING DIRECTOR KANATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS CORPN Vs. K S VENKATARAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the k. S. R. T. C. The respondent Nos. 1 to 8 presented a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of one Shivanna who was the brother of the claimants. He died in a road traffic accident on 21. 6. 1994 at about 7. 10 p. m. near K. E. B. Office on NH-4 at Mulbagal. He was a passenger in a bus bearing registration No. MYF 7365 owned by the appellant. The driver of the bus dashed the bus against a parked lorry bearing registration No. KA 19-3754. Due to the said accident, Shivanna died on the spot. The respondents-claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of said Shivanna. According to them, he was aged about 30 years and was a promising agriculturist. In addition to that, he was also doing milk vending business. According to them, he was getting an income of rs. 5,000 per month. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the deceased was getting an income of Rs. 2,400 per month and out of which '/3rd amount is deducted towards his personal expenses and theri applying the multiplier of 15, a sum of Rs. 2,88,000 is arrived at towards loss of dependency. In addition to that, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 10,000 towards shock, agony, suffering and loss of love and affection and Rs. 3,000 towards funeral expenses. K. S. R. T. C. is also directed to pay 9 per cent interest per annum. Being aggrieved by the order and award of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the K. S. R. T. C.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. According to him, the claimants were not dependent legal representatives of the deceased. He contends that without there being any proof in regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,400 per month. He further contends that the Claims Tribunal has also committed an error in deducting only 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased when the claimants were not depending upon the income of the deceased. He further contends that the claimants are married brothers and sisters of the deceased and the deceased was the youngest among them. Even according to the claimants, the claimants are left with some agricultural land and, therefore, he contends that deduction of 1/3rd amount is required to be modified. He further contends that awarding of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum is also on excessive side. On these grounds, he requested this court to dismiss the claimants' petition or in the alternative, reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the claimants contends that the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, has awarded the compensation. He also contends that the petition filed by the claimants was perfectly maintainable as they are the legal representatives of the deceased. He further contends that under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of their brother. He further contends that awarding of interest or awarding of compensation under various heads are required to be maintained and ultimately he requested this court to dismiss the appeal.