account of the rash and negligent driving of the TNSRTC Bus
bearing Reg.No.’I’i\T–29–N~i362 on Hosur road V.-“near
Hebbagodi bus stand. It is the further Case of the
that, deceased was aged about 21 years, hale ll
working as Welder in M/ s Amith Engineerfingvlé if
drawing the salary of ?4,500/– per
the welfare of the family and his they ” d
suffered lot. The said, .claimg..petitio’n_ had”eo.1ne.:§ up for
consideration” me Tribunal after
appreciating and. evidence and other
material availai;1e«..ont has allowed the claim petition
in part, treating’ petition filed under section
166 AC”C,”7l2§l7:ilL’h0’t,lt there being any amendment of
and awarded the compensation of
different heads with interest at 7%
j p.a.,ffrorn,é’ date of petition till its deposit. Not being
l..jsati’sfi.ed with the compensation awarded by the
Corporation has presented this appeal, for
llfirnodification of the impugned judgment and award, on
the ground that, t%l’ribunal has erred in treating the
I //_J),,…
wlv
V3
claim petition filed by the claimants under
of M.V.Act, Without there being any amendment'”»fif—-:thi?__ _
claim petition by the claimants and also .o”n’u ”
that, Tribunal has erred in not lfixiiig
negligence on the part of th_e”–~.deceased.and”
compensation awarded is ora…higher side’and_is liable
to be reduced. l
4. We have heard ieariiedly-ceii’nsel appearing
for the Corporation -‘Ll-andglearned counsel for claimants.
of the material available on
record at«threadbare;.:inol’ud*ing the impugned judgment
and award passed hvlbylthes Tribunal, it emerges that, in
theflfclaiinantswliave filed a claim petition under
M.V. Act. seeking compensation
_ against ighefiorporation on account of the death of the
;doceaseCi*’..in the road traffic accident. To substantiate
claimants have produced the documentary
T evidence like EX.P1–FIR, Ex.P2–Panchanarna, Ex.P3–
U IMV Report, Ex.P4–Inquest report, Ex.P5–P.M.report and
A/»
/
under section 166 of M.V. Act, having regard to
genuineness of the claim, in View of the well settledtiavr
laid down by the Apex Court and this of _
judgments. Accordingly, exercising the power”1i.nde’r.:o’rder”‘*
41 Rule 33 of CPC, we treat the:’,_petiticfn’«’as
section 166 of 1VI.V. Act and re–d_etermine the rcvoinpensation
under loss of dependency and conventionai
7. It is not in dis-pyrite t_hat_vdeceas”e~d_ was aged about
21 years, working as welder. the salary of
salary certificate. But
the claimants _»I::’14’C’;”f,._p’4(§’.>.».’._VE:d..IVi’li.I”1F.”¢Ci the employer to prove the
same. Therefore, ail. these factors into consideration,
we refijassess his ‘income at ?4,000/- per month. Out of which,
‘E”3()’:3/o :..detit1,Vcted towards personal and living expenses of
:the”tdece’a:s”_ed__ he was a bacheior at the time of his death,
the net income comes to €2,000/– per month. The appropriate
W M ii ..i’1\:1u,1tip1ier”applicable to the case in hand is ‘I5’ instead of ‘i8’
adopted by the Tribunal, in View of the law laid down by
-tile Apex Court in Sarla VerIna’s case reported in 2009 ACJ
1298, since the age of tie younger parent, the mother of the
I/”
I
8
deceased is 40 years. Therefore, we re–determine the loss of
dependency at ?3,60,000/- {?2,000/- x 12 X 15] instead of
?’2,’70,000/– awarded by the Tribunal and accordingiy;’p–«l_it’is
award ed .
8. Having regard to the fact,s..a..nd if
the case, we award a sum of
estate. a sum of $10,000/- towards loss .of’1oyeoandaffection”V A
and a sum of ?10,000/.– towardsitrarisportaltion. and funeral
expenses l l
9. For thefo1:¢go;;:ig”:+eé;sofis.;}i~.he’-impugned judgment
and award ‘l Tribunal is liable to be
m0dified;”i.._Tl1e ckjmpensation payable comes to
V. ?3V,»9lQ,Q_Q0– .lai’1d.._the break– up is as follows:
A ‘ Towards Losslof dependency Q’ 3,60,000/–
Toiwardslossbfestate e 10,000/–
‘I’owards 1o’s;s:5f love and affection Q’ 10,000/–
Toi>«rardl_s funeral and transportation ‘K’ 10,000/–
expenses
” ” ‘ Total % 3,9o,ooo/-
10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Corporation
is dismissed an%1e impugned judgment and award
‘I ‘fig-r””_’g__,4u-é°’
0 ” . V in isrdirecteidiito draw the award, accordingly.
9
passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 3330/2003 is hereby
modified, awarding the compensation of ‘\’3,90,000/~»
instead of ?3,15,000/– awarded by the TribunaiV.”‘–e
enhanced compensation comes to ?’/5,000/~ ‘
6% p.a., from the date of petition ti11__iits.f¢$1lisatio”n;1 0 0
The Corporation is directed
compensation of ‘\’75,000/-
four weeks from the date or0″a.e_¢ép¥v’f of this
judgment and award. .0 A 0
The enhanced co1’1ipe:nsat.io;} l_?f.’5,000/- with
proportionate. ~shaii. _VVbe_’..reie0ased”V0 in favour of the
claimant 1′ proportion, immediately, on
deposit by the Corporatiian:
Sdf
Iudgé’
3d/*2′