MFA r’Jo24371!2OO IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 1 3h day of July 20 ii Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Miscellaneous First plNo.2437jj2Qj0jM BETWEEN: 1. Srnt. Indrawwa. W/o Hanarnant Patankodi. Age: 29 yrs, 0cc: Household work, R/o Aigali, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum. 2. Kurnari Chandrawwa. D/o Hanamant Patankodi. Age: 9 vrs, 0cc: Student, R/o Aigali, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum. 3. Kurnari Parawwa. D/o Hanamant Patankodi. Age: 7 vrs, 0cc: Student, R/o Aigali, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum. 4. Kurnar Shrishail. S/o Hanamant Patankodi. Age: 5 yrs. 0cc: Nil. R/o Aigali, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum. 5. Kurnar Mahaling, S/o Hanamant Patankodi. Age: 3 yrs. 0cc: Nil. R/o Aigali, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum. MEA No.24371/2010 :2: ‘P Cat. obmal s)c4OdcSe4 I 6. Nmgappa S/o Yallapa Pattandkodi, Age: 71 yrs, 0cc: Nil, 14 ‘tlR/o Aigali, Tal: Athan 5‘:;ez 1 S eL&to%ra IDist: Belgaum. ‘I (Note appellant Nos.2 to S are minors rep. By guardian appellant No.1) . . .Appellants (By Sri. Vishwanath V.Badiger, Advocate) AND: 1. Halappa, Sb Laxman Uppar @ Gopali, Age: Major, 0cc: Agriculturist, R/o Yaragatti Farm, Yaragatti, Tal: Jamakandi, Dist: Bagalkot. 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Maruti Galli, Belgaum. . . .Respondents (By Sri. Ravindra R.Mane. Advocate for R2) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 01.04.2010 passed in MVC No.908/2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-Ill and Member, Additional MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following: MFA No.24371/2010 :3: JUDGMENT Shri. Ravindra R.Mane, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.2. This appeal is filed by legal heirs of the deceased Hanamant Pattankodi questioning the judgment and award passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, in M.V.C. Na908/2009 dated 01.04.2010. 2. The deceased while travelling on a motor cycle was hit by a tractor-trailor, as a result of which, he is said to have sustained grievous injuries and on being shifted to Hospital has expired and, as such, a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Tribunal, after registering the petition, issued notice to respondents. 2nd respondent-insurance company has filed statement of objections denying the claim MFA No.24371/2010 :4: averments. I si respondent-owner of the offending vehicle has not filed any objection. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed issues for its consideration. 1St claimant-wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W. I and got marked Exs.P. I to P.6. Copy of the insurance policy issued to the offending vehicle was marked as Ex.R. 1. On considering the evidence tendered by claimants, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,78,400/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under the following heads: “i. Loss of dependency Rs.4, 18,400-00 ii. Loss of love & affection of petitioners 2 to 5 Rs. 20,000-00 iii. Loss of love and affection of petitioner-6 Rs. 10,000-00 iv. Loss of estate Rs. 20,000-00 v. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 10,000-00 Rs.5,79,400-00 MIANo.24371/2010 :5: 3. It is this compensation awarded by Tribunal, which is assailed in the present appeal contending that same requires to be enhanced. It is contended in the appeal that Tribunal ought to have taken income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month as against Rs.3,000/-. It is also contended that compensation awarded under the conventional heads deserves to be enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurance company, Shri Ravindra R.Mane, would submit that compensation awarded by Tribunal itself is on the higher side and contends same does not call for any interference. 5. Having hearing learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is noticed that deceased was in the avocation of grazing his own sheep and after removing MIA No.243i 1,2010 0 the wool and fur on them he used to sell and was halting the sheep in agricultural lands for the purpose of manure and. as such, it was contended that he was earning an income of Rs.lO,OOO/ per month. Tribunal having noticed the evidence tendered by claimant has arrived at income of the deceased at Rs.l2O/ per day. The fact that sheep belonging to the deceased has not been lost to the legal heirs of the deceased cannot be disputed. It is only the supervision charges that the legal heirs of the deceased may now have to expend for rearing the sheep and maintaining them, and claimants would be entitled for loss of said supervision charges which now they will have to spend. Taking this factor into consideration, Tribunal has arrived at the income of the deceased at Rs.120/- per day and held Rs.3.600/- per month would be the income which ought to be taken for the purpose computation of loss of dependency. Though the Tribunal has not, in actual words. stated this fact the Tribunal has calculated the MFA No.24371/2010 :7: compensation under the loss of dependency by holding the income of the deceased at Rs.43200/- per annum calculated on the basis of Rs.120/- per day. Said conclusion arrived at by Tribunal is just, which cannot be called either to be on the lower side or which calls for interference. Even 1/4th deduction that has been done by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the deceased taking into consideration the number of dependants and by applying the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma Va Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009)6 8CC 121, is also just which cannot be interfered with by this Court. As such, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and it is hereby rejected. 6. Compensation awarded under the conventional heads are also just and reasonable and \IF\ No.2-1371 20 (1 :8: same does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Judgment and award dated 01.04.2010 passed by Adcll. MACT, Belgaum. in M.V.C. No.908/2009 is hereby confirmed. Shri. Ravindra R.Mane. is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2 within four weeks from today. saP 3U’DGE Krns