I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE
DATED THIS THE wk DAY 0? JANUARY
BEF()RE
THE. HONBLE MR. JUSTICFQA s Bc>m:~ii§i_.4§ '-
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALT.;~iQ,..2§}f11i§3 ; T
BETWEEN :
1 V NAGAPPA 3:0 THIMMEGG'"€E{E¥A@ GEru:>EG0w:;>A
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R; 0 VALAGARAHALLL «KASABAA 2-3951;
MADDUR TALUK " ' ' ' V * .
2 V SEENAPPAS/O T§5.£b{ivi'EG©¥1éD:'{;§@, C'§£af>EGowI)A
AGED ABOUT 32 maps '
32,30 vAi§é'{*s;weA;JAm,}"'K4§sABA HOBLI
MADDUR TALEJK
3 RAJA}v1MA,ALJAS'f)(}!)I3AMA'YAMMA
Rio BiKK_ALA NINGEGOWDA
V, AGED AB0t£'_I"36 YEARS,
- 'Rm, S€>MPi.IR'A"v'fi;.1AGE
xA£)£>I}R.._TALUK
I $2 '*i' BH'A{'§YA'MMA mo K P DEVAFEAJU
. "-V%:x--";:;g:3z;'r 30 YEARS
R/cs» KUDURUGUNDI VILIAGE
Agmbufi TALUK APPELLANTS
H " . }:E>.y syn "H C SHWARAMU, ADV.)
' Am) :
V' THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S'R.'{'.C. SARKEE BHAVAN
L
'9
KJFLDOUBLE ROAD, BANGAIATJREQ7
(OWNER CUM~§NSURER OP' KSRTC
BUS BEARING NO. KA~09/F--303_4)».
{By Smt: sigmmsam A swam, A9v.}:__ A
THIS APPEAL IS FILED u;a{I=z3(1; .€.)F._ Iviv_Ac'i*,~--l'AGAiNsT 1'
mg JUDGEMENF AND AWARD DAT_ED_26.04-.5200? PASSED IN
MVC NO.263{20G."S on was F'2L§;...OF'C1VIL JUDGE. {S}?.I'JN.) 85
MACT. MADDUR. PARTLY 'ALLOEJINQ 'i'HjE,CLAIM PETi'I'1ON FOR
COMPENSATION Arm '«.n 21.2.2(}05 and SmtC a haxfmg died in the said
" accident are not amtiousiy in dispute. The: oniy question that
1;
arises ibr considciation in this appeal is with mfifi"
compensation awanicd by the Tribunal and asgio V.
the same is justifiabk or not.
4. In this regard it is II10I2i(?¢?:£:Té"if;]?:t-.'FfiA'
asvaxtiacl the total
the loss of dependency agwefl heads.
On behalf of the that tlzm
compensation awafied the: 'meow:
reckoned by.' even tlwugh the
clainaanfi earning a sum of
Rs.10,0%?Q/ f finthcr contended that even
the deduéugg: of and (m that me also, the
eompgnfiafionx be enhanced. It is further
tliaig eve:nVV'§i:£« convention" 31 heads, the appropna' in
not been awarded anti flleztibm, flit': same
u = ""i'hc learned munfigi for the respondent however
.’ to justify the award. it ‘w ezxmtxended that in the
J»
absence 01’ any material to ixldicate the mwmc, _
has appropriatcljgr considered the nofionai» ”
123.1001» per day which does 116.-ht jfb r_
Therefcare, only certain” nomm ” aal .. .
conventional head is tmlleti far no
needs tobc made. ‘ __ j _ _
6. In the light uf”th¢.c::;1_1}’«c11ti<3r1:;*:9» a _pe1usa1 of the
awaxd and the appegz in fact the
431%" Ehaikizic deceased was doing
seflcmtfifi: 'and izarmng R$.10,()fiO]– every
month, _ No Lta:im;Vbt,_ii 1'S=_a ޤct that they have net produced
./any évkiénéc and since the deceased was
cg 'mm 'fgaperatrion in a rum} area, it is justifiabic
tnatjxé d§¢{:;;u§'nt could be expected and thczmibna, incomes
'V§vo121¢:i' be emnsidetezi taking a prawatic vicw in the
V' of the pmsetat case. The Tiribmaal has reckoned the
' n§fiafim income at Rs. 1001- per day. It is to be noticed that
u accidfint had ocssruntd on 21.2.2005. In several cases,
I
even for caolics, this Court has been reckoning I10}; V
Rs. 100 /- keeping in View the normal payment AL *
Considering the fact that the deoc33::£l"w*as amg
and business of supplying milk, a *
estimattz the sum of Rs.4,00€}]—- mtiiitlg Wqfifii be " V
reckoned as the ixzconze, ajnbunt
1133 to be dcductnd, the doccased
when was aneideriy _1adyA'£vas::'§zv;:§iz1iI1g area and
rnercso in by the Hmrble
Supremfs fit)' the nature of deduction.
Hence thé' 4' "iawmded an the hand 0-floss of
dcpenriancy tlicz fiifinc multiplier as adapted by the
" ''Tfib'§:§a15.–.w9tL3fi be of Rs.3,24,000]–. In adtiition in
t}Ii3_sa:ai'. oonve:nt10nai' amount towards loss of
and afilaction, funeral expenses etc in ali
to a sum of Rs.4'G,OO0/- would have to be
A Themfizare the cimm' ants/appdmts woukd be
to the metal cnmpenaatien 01' Rs.3,64,00fi/- as
° .aga1711st the sum cf Rs.1,9~0,000/- awaxficd by the Tribunal.
3;
Q1
The saifl aum is payabia with intcmst at 6% V.
date «of petition. The enhanced portxm of the
with interest shall he dcpositacd
pained’ of six weeks from the date (:1-f a
order.
In tcrnm of the .fl 1.-;v ‘ _s disposed oil
No order as tn e0.*_’a’;=3._
sa/-3,