SIDDAGANGAMMA ALIAS SIDDALINGAMMA Vs. DEPOT MANAGER ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are by the claimants and the APSRTC (hereinafter called 'Corporation' for short) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2009 passed in MVC No.4894/2006 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), awarding Rs.18,24,360/ - with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased -M. Gopalaiah in the road traffic accident. The contention of the claimants is that, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, it requires enhancement. Whereas, the Corporation contends that, the direction issued by the Tribunal to indemnify the award amount cannot be sustained in law and liable to be set aside, since the vehicle in question was not at all involved in the accident.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are as under: The claimants, who are none other than wife, minor children and parents of the deceased had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the Corporation, contending that, the deceased, aged about 42 years, hale and healthy, met with an accident on 20.02.2006 at about 9.45 p.m. when he was riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA -04/ED -8671 on Kannamangalapalya, NH -7 Road, Devanahalli Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Corporation Bus bearing registration No.AP -11/Z - 2309. Due to impact he sustained injuries and shifted to Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore where he was treated as an inpatient for six days and succumbed to injuries in the hospital on 26.02.2006 at 7.40 p.m. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on file has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.18,24,360/ - under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, directing the Corporation to indemnify the award amount. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimants have presented the appeal for enhancement of compensation and the Corporation has presented the appeal contending that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side and also the direction issued to it to indemnify the award amount is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE submission of Sri Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the claimants at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads. What is awarded is inadequate. Also the Tribunal has failed to consider the avocation that the deceased was working as Senior Production Assistant in Astra Zeneca and drawing salary of Rs.25,086/ - p.m. Further, he submits, the deceased was aged about 43 years as on the date of accident and in the light of Sarla Verma s case, 2009 ACJ 1298future prospects at 30% is to be added to the income of the deceased while calculating the loss of dependency. Therefore, he submits, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads.