IN I Nh I 1I(H I L R I H k\R\ \ I \K:\ Ik( LIT KiNtIl \ IHiAI\\ \i) [ilK IIUNIU K MR. JLS[R I N KLM\R I FA. L 204 6 9 r 2 Ol_() l3ah IIaMra \Vo. BudNh1I1 0 1\I1J0000W \llOiJl. jN i(!L\\ R../o. Pala Iq: Mundaod, Di.sio North Kanara. Kuni:n lohammad Ln S l3adJiah u... Kada.rsah S’ira..tdi. ii K flUfltfl K o P1K Kr ii a I ri i l L’ a I3ad.haIi a... Ki0.1diro1h \lrooii r\ae: 23 years. Ue.e; I1otes\..i Ia. I?. 1• n ri 1.50 0yrjfl. Sri. [Ilesde. Sri. Neeralai and !Utit •\ (I\1f i\...1 Ii a a 1 IS. a K i K .1 del a I K he (Jar U a a 45 re. or ()re;l a a RiO. .. iIeor.ta\Oii, I 10) lOla.\5i, .[..)ist.; North •Kanara.. K 015;) 0 11 a U U I . 5. 5; 10 0.0 Karavar. Dial: North K.aaara, -2- 3. Nlohernmad iLl1 I ced Abdulraj Shaheed Mulla, Age: Sol Known. I Major; 0cc: I)river. Rio. Chandavar, Tq: Ilonnavar. 1)1st: North Kanara. - Respondents This M.F.A. Cr. Gb. in Ml A. No.20469,2010 is tiled wider Section 173(I) of MV Act. against the judgment and award dated 28’08!2009 passed in MVC No.123.2007 on the tile of the Member, Addl. MAC F, yellapur. partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. 1 his (r.Oh. coni ing on br orders t non—compliance of office objections/hearing on lA’s/Admissionlfinal hearing this da> , Court delivered the IbIIo’s ing: JL!I)GMI:N I 1 his cross objection is preferred seeking enhancement ot compensation br the death ot sole bread earner ot the titmi I) 2. First petitioner is the widow and the second petitioner is the son of deceased Badshah ‘ Khadarisah Margadi. On 07.04.2007 he died in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioners being his legal heirs preferred a claim petition claiming a sum of ? 20,00,000/- as compensation. ihe respondents contested the claim. Ihey did not dispute the accident, the death and the insurance coverage to the ‘elude. On ghe aforesaid pleadings the I ribunal Iranued three issues. First claimant was examined as P.% .1. She produced 12 documents which are marked as I---- .3- Ex.P.I to E\.P.l2. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. But. Ii) consent of parties 3 documents are marked as Ex.R.l to Ex.R.3. 3. On appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary n idence on record the Tribunal held that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the ‘chicle in question. I herefore the claimants ha e established actionable negligence. Thereafter the Tribunal proceeded to consider the loss of dependenc> . fhe case of the petitioners is that the deceased “as a lender coconut merchani at Kolhapur in Maharaira State and also he was upplvina the same to the retails in Kolhapur town. Other than that he himself maintained 7 to 8 retail shops b> appointing labours of his ow n villagers, lIe as taking supply of tender coconuts from Relgaum 01st. I lis work is only supervision anti supply of’ tender coconuts. Deceased “as also having pigmy account and used to credit ? 500’- to 600’- to his account. He was aged about 28 >ears and earning ! 20.000 - per month. However. P.W. I who was esamined in this ease had lived with the deceased lot onl six months and therealier she went to her 4— -4 parental house for confinement. Therefore she states that she is unable to give an> particulars of the business, the extent of business, the income Ironi the busines%. She a I o did not produce an> documents to evidence the actual income of’ the business. Pigmy pass book Ex.P.9 only shows that he had deposited ? 200 — for some time and therea 11cr it ‘as di scont in tied. 4. Under these circumstances the Tribunal took income of the deceased at 4.000 — per month. deducted I 3 to” ards personal expenses. applied multiplier I 7 and awarded a suni of’ 5.44,068/- as compensation under the heading of loss of dependene> . It also awarded a sum of ? 1(1.000 — to ards loss ol’ love and a tteciion to petit inner no. 2. ? 1 0.(iO(I — to ards loss of consortium to the wife. ? 5.000/- towards transportation of dead body and 5.000’— tow ards funeral and obseque ceremonies. In all a sum of ! 5.”4.068•— i a” arded. Aggrieved by the said award the claimants are in appeal. 5. It i contended that in the light of the material on record the I rihuna I taking income of the deceased Lit ? 4_OUt) — per month is on the lower side. No amount of compensation is -0- awarded under the heading of loss of estate and therefore (he compensation has to be enhanced. Though under the heading loss of estate no amount is awarded, a sum of 10.000/- is a” arded to” ards Ii)ss of love and affection to the child “ hieh is hardl t o months. A sum of Z I 0.000 — is a arded under the heading transportation of dead body and also obseqitse ceremonies. Even without an’ evidence on record, the tribunal has taken ? 4.000/- as the income of the deceased. 6. 1 ‘nder these circumstances it cannot he said that the a” ard passed by the I rihunal suffers from any legal infirmity or ihe compensation a arded is inadequate so as to call for its enhancement by (his Court. In that view of the matter. I do not find any merit in the cross objections. Accordingly it is dismissed. Sd! JUDGE bv