DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M R MALLESH,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the insurer against the judgment and award dated 8.10.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.1120/2011 by the Additional M.A.C.T. -II, Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), challenging quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive and exorbitant. The 1st respondent has been awarded a compensation of Rs.19,51,438/ - by the Tribunal by the impugned award.

(2.) THE facts in brief is, claimant/respondent No.1 herein being the husband of Smt.Savitha, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal on the death of his wife on12.8.2011 in the vehicular accident near Hosamalali village while riding her Scooty bearing registration No.KA -14/EA -2218. It was the case of the claimant that, the offending vehicle, Cruiser bearing registration No.KA -14/A -3840 came in a rash and negligent manner on wrong side of the road, dashed against Savitha, she sustained grievous injuries and she was shifted to K.M.C.Hospital, Manipal. While on treatment, she died in the hospital on 27.8.2011. She was getting a salary of Rs.18,000/ - per month, as an Assistant Teacher in a Government School. She was hale and healthy and the claimant was entirely depending on her for his livelihood. The petition was contested on all grounds. After appreciation of the evidence and on hearing both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.19,51,438/ - with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that, since the husband of the deceased was the sole claimant, there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal to grant loss of dependency in his favour, who was a well -built, able bodied and a self -reliable person. When there was no third person in the family, the Tribunal committed a serious error in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased; the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards her personal expenses. The multiplier of '16', which was proportionate to the age of the deceased, ought not have been taken by the Tribunal; it should have been '14' corresponding to the age of the claimant. The deceased being a Government employee was entitled to get medical reimbursement. There was no proof establishing that the medical reimbursement was not taken. Hence, the award of Rs.19,51,438/ - is exorbitant and excessive and the same is liable to be reduced.