Jawad Rahim, J.@mdashThis appeal is by the dissatisfied claimants against the judgment and award dated 26.5.2007 in MVC No. 4283/2006 on the file of the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, SCC -4.
2. Appeal is posted for admission after notice to the Respondents and learned Counsel for the Respondent - Insurance Co. has entered appearance.
Relevant facts:
3. One Raju alias Rajesh Gowda, working as a Cleaner in a lorry bearing Regn. No KA 19A 3658 was travelling in the vehicle on 21.2.2006. When the vehicle was moving on NH4, Bangalore - Pune Highway towards Bangalore, there was puncture in the tyre, consequent to which the driver lost the control and the vehicle collided with another parked lorry. Consequent to such impact, the occupants in the lorry including Raju alias Rajesh Gowda suffered injury and he succumbed to the same. The parents, sister and brother lodged the claim u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The Respondents resisted the claim.
4. On the basis of evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part on no fault liability granting compensation by following structural formula prescribed in the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. However, to determine the compensation, the Tribunal has disbelieved the statement of 1st Appellant (father of the deceased) that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3,300/- p.m. The Tribunal has taken his income of Rs. 100/- per day and held that it was private service. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased for a period of 25 days only. Consequent to such improper approach to the issue under consideration, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. The claimants are aggrieved by it.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. On reconsideration of the materials on record, it is seen that the claimants had filed the petition u/s 163A of the MV Act instead of filing the petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act. By this, the claimants have lost sufficient compensation as the Tribunal could not have ordered compensation more than the structured formula.
However the award requires reconsideration and I find no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 1 that Raju alias Rajesh Gowda was working as cleaner and earning Rs. 3,300/- p.m. Therefore, that is taken as basis and the annual income will be at Rs. 39,600/-, out of which, 1/3rd will have to be deducted out of which towards personal expenses. The multiplier 18 is applicable on the basis of the age of the victim by applying Section 163A of the I MV Act. The amount towards ''loss of dependency'' comes to Rs. 4.79,700/- as against the amount of Rs. 3,44,364/- awarded by the Tribunal. The amount awarded towards funeral expenses and loss estate is just and proper. Hence, the appeal stands allowed in part. The enhancement compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. to be deposited within four weeks from today. The rest of the direction issued by the Tribunal is confirmed.
