UMASHANKAR SINGH Vs. RAMESH SON OF A RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed impugning the judgment and award dated 06.08.2010 insofar as the claim petition in MVC No.3060 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal: MACT - 16, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal') whereby, the Tribunal has awarded to the appellants, the parents of the deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh, a total compensation in a sum of Rs. 9,77,740.00 along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order. The first of the appeals in MFA No.3110 of 2011 is filed by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle viz., lorry bearing registration No. KA-03-2781 and the other appeal in MFA No.1037 of 2011 is filed by the appellants viz., the claimants in MVC No. 3060 of 2009.

(2.) The appellants in MFA No.1037 of 2011, who are hereinafter referred to as the claimants, filed the claim petition in MVC No.3060 of 2009 contending that their son, the deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh died in a road accident on 02.04.2009. The deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-EZ-4520 with Jaswanth Singh (whose parents are the claimants in the other clubbed petition in MVC No. 3058/2009 which is also disposed of by the impugned judgment) on the pillion on NH -4 near ITC factory junction, Bengaluru when the offending vehicle, entering NH 4 from an approach road, hit the motorcycle. The deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. The deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh, a mechanical engineer, was employed with M/s. HTMT (Hinduja Group) Global Solutions Limited. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000.00 per month, and in the demise of their son, the claimants have not only lost their son but also are deprived of dependency.

(3.) The owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurer, who were arrayed as party respondents, upon service of notice of the claim petition, entered appearance and filed their respective objection statements. The respondents did not dispute the accident. However, they contended that the accident was a result of rash and negligent riding by the deceased and the claim for compensation was exaggerated. The Tribunal framed different Issues for consideration, including the Issues as to whether the claimants were able to establish actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the claimants were able to establish their entitlement for compensation and if so, to what amount.