High Court Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Metorpolitan … vs Dr Balaio Das Mandal on 27 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metorpolitan … vs Dr Balaio Das Mandal on 27 July, 2009
Author: N.Ananda


IN THE HEGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT’ BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY :211Q9<M j%%L.

$EF'(}RE

THE HONBLE MR. JUs':1§:,E_ N.A:4AN:jg

M_F.A.N0.5972 0'1? 7

BETWEEN:

L BANGALQRE METGRPOLITAE ‘

TRANSPORT CORPROA’i’i{f)_N ” ‘

CENTRAL OFFICE, K H 13-‘QUBLE _
SHA3.\FTHINAC’:AI5?, E¥ANGALQ_f?E ‘ –.

BY ITS MP’xNAG}N.G ‘ -_ ” APPELLANT

{Ry Sri; ~::;_ vz,:AYAi:1ii§;:sii<~,-.figiyvocafmy

iiffiirz ggaégai DES ";~aNDAL

'SIG Li§'?'E_KAL1 PAEIA MANFJAL
.»AGF.T§' ._s.ra’:vrrrs9 YRS-E

;::<;AT'a.B*«}g1'I3S:r:N eommurm,

* QE;Ii£<::::*r'A P<)§;a'i',

Wssflfifieil _ff§IS'PR¥(?T
Minuawsz, was? BENGPLL

" " f.1__DR NiL§I'siA MANQAL
W;"'Q DR BALAI DAS BéANf)§&L
RGED AF§€')iI'1' S'? 'HE'S
;Eij'A A 13 MISSION CA’1’E~eF{P::.%r1T1o1~: .fifi1LL. DATE
OF DEPOSIT. I ~ * ‘ ‘ n V ‘

This appeal, comingmfl for«’h.é.’%ring,TV.t%;i$ ciayfg

Court, delivered the fGl1oWn1g”‘.~~..

This appeal Metmpolitan

“{‘ran:=;pnrt tkmzfgxwmfigjn ‘f’o*:: t’_<é;c11 "1::tia§n;«:$f compens.at.i(m,

i1":fer{aiia,_6dvf1m3iding Vfh;at .a_e:ses,<;me'nt 0f income by the
f,rib1zné1.._ié%%faf"»ofi~ th_é§"ftjigfier sidc: as also the trihrmai
has; 'atinpted '*hi_Vg'i*1'er fniiitipiier.

hazard Sri.F}.Vijayakn3mr, learned

and SI*i.K.V.Nayak, learfled cmmsei

fa?' rrlaiméaiits.

The deceased was the son of claimants i and

Hjfioth the claimants are doctors by pmfession. The

:2fld claimant is the: mnthar 0?’ dewctastxi, she was aged

abcmt 524 years at the: time mi’ a(‘:Cid{‘§I’it. The tribunal

irmtead of apgfiying mzfitiplier appmptiate to the age (‘If

hryx 2» fséim ;

5&3

Lu)

marker of deceased has adopted .
to the age of tiecesasrztd. ‘¥’herefo_m.,. ‘ii ‘A ”
which is appropriate to the age, r_)f
of deceased). V ” 2 ‘

4. As regards tribunal
taking into conside1*§$tifi :’1 damaged was 3
finai year and aim
tat;-;:n national income
of ammm, which in my
c0nSi:£i.eI’9éC1′ feasrmable. The tribunal

considefiéig ” 9.’.’;«1<':'a*-."V that. ciaimams (parents 0?

" v ., d'é£ié.a_$ed}. flare '§'i{3t:i';c'$rs by pmfessiorz, dedmtted 5{3'% of

persorxai and living expenditlrre 0f the

c*i¢ceas:=:d;j.V. 'Therefore, I do not find any error in this

V A finding i

5. The claimants are amtitled to compensation

_J%1if’1(if”:I’ the head “loss {if dependency of F3s.”2_Q,(‘)(3() x I I ==

Rs;.’2,’Zi”),f3{“3(‘i and cempernssation of F.’s;,4,500[‘– under
);'””,

~I\~1 –\.,. 5-‘X-L “°”°L”‘ .

the canventionzal heads. The ciaimants are;*’c?;:iI.jiti§ti _._t.k;w

tomi compensation of °Rs*..’2,’24,5(){“3/—-.

6. in the msnit, I pass    4' '  V

The appeal is    étgnpixgneci

award is modified’, F<i'sH.S#A,64,5€}0/~
awarded by the' 'VF's.2,24,5t30/–.
The rest

Thg v§:hailT be iransferred ms

¥v'I'AC'¥' 82'. SCCI-I Q;;_fF§a?:*9g#1VIVfii*r§';- 3 V ' %

€352'

The parfiezs aré"di1w=:¢téd in their costs.

JUDGE