United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri B K Prakash on 23 May, 2011

i “ivi;:FIA.12702/2007 is fiiedkunder Section 173(1) of MV Act

iiaigaiigist the judgment and award dated 09.04.2007 passed in
.._ iVi~V~€3 Ne:i.1104/2006 on the file of The Member, Additional MACT,

Hassan, awarding a compensation of 3′ 2,637,000/– with interest

at the rate of 6% PA. from the date of petition tiii deposit.

– ii –

i\/LPIA. 12703/200′? is filed under Section l73(1} of MV Act
against the judgrnent and award dated 09.04.1200?’ passed in
MVC No.ilQ5/2006 on the file of The Additional Civii Judge
{Sr.Dn.], Member, Add}. MACT, Hassan, awarding a eom}:3en’s_ation

of 3′ 1,553,000/~ with interest at the rate of 6% PA.

of petition till deposit.

wLF¢ti27oi/2oo7:sined undep&xnuonfi?3fng§inh;ini’»”

against the judgment and award dated Q49.«Qéi~,2OlG?__ pas_sed_ in
MVC No.l103/2006 on the file of The Additional _.C:vii»vLIut§1ge

(Sr.Dn.}, <3: Addl. l\/{ACT} Hassan, awarding*..a cornpen'satio':1 of
87,000/~ with interest at the rat.e"*of 60/o'~Pg.A(. _frorn'-..tiie..,diate oi?'

petition till deposit.

RdiRAuil353/2007 siakxituuks Seefion l73(D ofiiv Act
against the judgment and””.a’w_ard dated. j09QO4.2007 passed in
RFW3 DRLQO6/2005 on the fik::fi*The,Addn3nnn tnvu Judge
(SI’.DI1.), & Addl. MACT, Hassa’n[:’pai*’tlyg_al1owing” the Claim petition
for compensation :and_ seeking ;enhan.een_ien_t of compensation.

These Appeais ‘7e”on__iing.jg’on”foij hearing this day, the Court

delivered the following; . «.

«*,g “”” fiéfipomsnr

mtp2AJvos127o2f20o7* and’ 12703/2007 are 13/ the

insurer, questioning_ as well as quantum of

Compensation. Children of the deceased had filed

=litRIc3aés$io4,&;1165/2006. In hi\KCiW1llO4/2OO6,itis

alle_’g’edl_ “that._:theddefzeased was earning Rs.3,000/~ by way of

pensicnlliand — by way of agricultural supervision, the
taliing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/~ giving
of 1/3” has calculated the loss of dependency at

‘i’ts.2V;;52,{}0(}/~. in all, it has awarded Rs.2,67’,{}OO/-,

{<:\fib/Ls

'$4

«::""i'"

3

2. ln l\«la\?.C.No_il05/Ziltlti, the daughter has maimed
Compensation against the death of her mother. The
taking the income of the cleeeaseel at Rs.2,000/~
of 1/316 has calculated the eornpensatio»n.__at

interest.

8. As against these two a\>t7a1=%:1g;.,the.vins1i1’er
two appeals interalia conter3..c_ling;th’at’l.:the””Claimants both the
Cases are major children vie.) They are not
entitled for the comlpensateionytoa>ard§:1QSl§ ‘dependency. The
Tribunal has Vii§’_a%ylarding loss of dependency

in favour tfié:;i1gli-t.e1=._a11o’major son.

4. On the “ot_her’3.hand,~..learned Counsel appearing for the

claimant s1ibmitt’egl” ‘~.though claimants are major

nevertheless the deoeevaseel lniother as well as the father were

to the”‘fam_ily, that Contribution is not less than

l.l1sL4.5″O0 Tribunal taking reasonable income has

awarcletilloss dependency. The word “loss of dependency” does

not mean that it the claimants are entitled for loss of estate, as

..he stibmitteci that, the award of the tribunal does not call

” 2” V _ for “i.nt’erferenee.

-6,

5. It is not in dispute that, the Claimants are major

children. It is also net in dispute that the daughterridisiatso

married. In Case of major son as well as IT1EtI’Fi€(?t’V.r£3.E3;t§K$§,.IIi’§t;”;A’ it

eannet be said that the parents were eontributingdteu their it

and their untimely death may result 1_0ss of

The daughter after marriage goes to ethei’*–_VtamiI3?v._–v_i A {.owev.er~,_dii’:.VV

ease of death of their parents, therejecieuld posAsi’t7iii’t}}\”0t’ iess of ‘

estate i.e., the savings left.hehind'”hjf-th’e__.deceas’edV-and which
would be available to the they are major or
minor. The Tribunailiéxvas in ‘determining the loss of
dependency. to what would be
loss of estate,VdfiV..ace’e;nnt of their parents. In my
opinion, eV_en–_ ifdias expenditure by the deceased
father, the ceiitribntien by the deceased could not have

been less than EV>0’3€>._:V”IV’f that is taken, the claimants are entitled

ibis.Rs-…1j’2e-me/~ (Rs.’2′,’O()Ox12x5) towards loss of estate by

taking efthe deceased father at Rs.4,000/~ per month

and ttcfefiards.eern?enti0na1 heads, the claimants are entitled for
4Rs.4O,Ot’)C?/t¥;.t In all, eiairnants are entitled fer RS5 1,130,000/~ with

if ‘ in M.V.C.N0.1 104/2005.

6. In M.V.C.N0.1105/2006, the deceased is the mother.

contribution tea the family and her loss itself has denied not

oniy the eentributiori of her serve, but aise savings that she eenld

have made. It is in consideration of this, the Tribunal though has
stated that there is less of dependency, I find that same could be
treated as loss of estate to the children and accordingly,.j’i°–dje not
find any ground to interfere with the award of

passed in M.V.CiNo.l 105/2006.

7. Accordingly, M.F.A.No. 12702/2oc?fi’ is, “paf»:i_x.}«* ‘g;i.i_m;:;d.

The Claimants are entitle for eornpensatiorn of Rs;.1l,”6Q,.QQO/:9

interest, l\/LF’ .A.No. 127 O3 / 2007 disrnissed; The amount in
deposit be transferred to tlie._”l?ribilina;l.. ” L

8. M.F.A.No. l2;7£)_l the vehicle, who
sustained He has sought for
compensation. /2006. The Tribunal
taking of right humerus, multiple

laceration on”1f_ace:f c’ontu.sion_§ of chest, contusion of back and

‘_1nultiple};aljrasion ei’ hand and shoulder and also the evidence

.A’ledl.’by, has awarded compensation of Rs.87,000/~

with,i1i.terest;’_’vv..__ {jonsidering the evidence and the nature of

vixijurieell do find that the Tribunal has committed any error
.in.jawardinVg”‘the said compensation. Hence, I find no ground to

it Accordingly, i\/i.F,A.l\lo. 12701 /2007’ is dismissed.

%$%

as:

a”‘”‘