m MFA 4344 OF_ ado; ~ 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED was THE lo-nz mu? OF AUGUST, 2o1o
FRESENT
Tm: I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE 1) v 3
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEVKN
Miscellaneous P'irstAppeal of
Miscellaneous First Appeqz $12002 [MV]
BETWEEN
1.
MASTER . _
s/0 LATE B RAVI-~ .V '-
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
KUM %PmyAm~-ALLOWTNO THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR cOM1$ENSAT1ON"7f_jSEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
OOMPENSATTONAND "
'h\ni*Av-é:§i:5*45\.O§>at>._ 2002" ' ---------- A =
_ 1. "MASTER'AAI)IV'1;'=YA
S»/_O LATE "S. RAVI
AO'ED"AEOUT 7 YEARS
A KUM PRTYANKA
_D/'(_) LATE B RAVE
_ AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS
BEEMAIAH NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
4. SMT RUKMINI
W] O BEEMAIAH NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
SINCE PETITIONERS NO.1 81 2
ARE MINORS REP. BY NEXT
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT N RATHNA
W/O MANJUNATI-I _A _
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
N0.450, 8TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR , ._ _ A_
I-3ANGALORE--«<£0 APPELLANTS
{By Sri K Venkatasudheér;
1. SR! TI-IIRU I-3 BADRA REDDY
(OWNER), V A
S/O CHIKKA BADEEA REDDY . A
BELLORVILLAGF-3, _-- ~
A'I'I'IBELE POST, *
ANEKALTALUK, .
BANGALORE Ea: 'DIS'I'R1C'1';..
2. THE UNITED INDIA '1NSu.RIaNL:E CO.
MOTOR D,O.~IV NW0, '19--"1.9/ 1,
SOUTH END ROAD ._ * ' ~~
BASAVANAGU-D1
B/ADEGALORE -~ 4; AAAAA 14 . RESPONDENTS
Hegde Mulkhand, Adv. for R2]
A'-ii'HISDV"Mi?A 'iéiI;ED U/S 173(1) OF' MV ACT AGAINST THE
_ 'JUDGM'ENTv.'AND.7~"AWARD DATED: 16.1.2002 PASSED IN MVC NO.
1. 236,1/99 ONfI":~1E FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT--3, COURT OF SMALL
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETmON
V 4':4'OR_"'»c.OMPENSA'I1ON AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
----OOMEENSATION AND ETO,
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING. THIS
DAY, KTESHAVANARAYANA. J.. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
IN MFA No.4844 of 2002:
In an unfortunate accident that V’
27.6.1999. the father and mother-¥”of*-«they it
claimants who were proceeding on ._
father and mother being pillion died-. at as a it
result of scooter hitting which
stopped suddenly. This led’. petitions, one in
respect of death in respect of
father of the :
2. The area’ of this appeal filed by the
claimants forvV”enhancement:_’of compensation with regard to
the’ death ‘ their riiot.1f1_¢r is that the multiplier adopted by
the ‘ is incorrect since the appropriate
»,___._rnulti.’plier is the deceased was aged thirty years. The
.”_–«.phdediiction. 50% of the monthly income of the deceased
personal expenses is contrary to law and the
it -deduction should have been oniy one~third. Further
deduction of 40% of the total compensation determined
” towards contributory negligence on the part of the rider of
g
Tribunal is justified in deducting 40% of the “total
compensation determined towards contributory negligenc.e’.”–V_
6. We have bestowed our serious considera,ti_jons*~.l.:tor_ the
submissions made on both sides.
7. There is no dispute that the-v:deseased._wasVlfilerripioyee ”
of APMC on a monthiy yo’f–“dand~-‘she was
aged 30 years as on the dateof death. As
per the law iaid -in case [supra] the
appropriate age of deceased is
’17’. Therefore; of ‘dlbllladopted by the Tribunal
is not correct’.– V H proceed to quantify the
compensation applying rnultipiier of ’17’.
‘ ;’I”11e are two minor children. Their father
Vrwas alsoeian ea-tniliiig member While the mother was employed
Therefore, it is reasonable to hoid that she was
able c’ont1’ibute not less than two~third of her earnings for
V. welfare of the children. Under these circumstances, in
“our opinion, the Tribunal is not justified in deducting 50% of
the earning of the deceased towards her personal expenses.
Ly
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
the deduction towards personal expenses of the der:e’a_sed
ought to have been only one~third and not .
the loss of dependency to the appellants» has toibe it ”
by taking two–third of the income of de_’ceased._:”
9. The fact that the accident on. of the
scooter hitting the lorry ‘regsultylofl the lorry
which was going ahge-$191 is not in
dispute. The.’ admittedly the
pillion rider_._ out of the death
of the pillion -of composite negligence and
not a case of Vcopntriotitorynegligence as the deceased in this
V4.case was not in anyway responsibie for the accident. The
law’ is well settled and therefore deduction of
:7’a,_,___40%”of-{hie’cornplensation towards contributory negligence
‘even inltheacase arising out of death of the pillion rider, is
to law. The claimants are entitled to proceed
any one of the joint tortfeasors in the case of
C _3’~&,;’5r63..r
accident arising out of the e negligence of two or
more tortfeasors. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
Tribunal is not justified in deducting 40% of the incorne of
the deceased towards personal expenses. Therefore the
of the Tribunal calls for correction and accordinglyllthel ~
loss of dependency after deducting onew~third_”ofp”‘th.e» i’r1€:4_C_>rne_ T”
towards personal expenses works
[2604 M 868 {1/3«1 of 2604} = 12 x si71iraessAwa:a = T
passed by the Tribunal under heads
does not call for revision this extent, the
appeal is allowegi..<':l1t_~.is are
entitled for total — as against
Rs. 1 ,e5.oQo/it afiégirdéii sauna
10. The shall carry interest at 6%
per from of the petition till the date of the
p’-ayinenty. respondent -» insurance company shall
‘Vo,___deposit”the eni1ar;iced compensation within four weeks from
the» date’ of Vthevreceipt of copy of the Judgment.
The apportionment and disbursement of the enhanced
it llcioinpensation shall be in the same ratio as indicated by the
it Ayvard of the Tribunal.
IN MFA No.48-45 of 2002:
12. This appeal arises out of the above facts, 3
of death of father of the minor children who wasllthev _
the scooter.
13. This appeal is for enha11§en1ent” oI’V_con1p.en~sl.ation. = L’
Claimants are minor children and~llthe’p.arents-of deceased.
The limited area of grievan’ce_’ulrgeid::’ counsel for
the appellants is the one–third of
the income of “personal expenses.
but having of dependents, the
deduction one-fourth as laid down by
the Supreme C’ou_rt. in VERMA’s case [supra]. It is
:.’also. lsuibmivsgsionwth’at°the contributory negligence on the
oiitheel: quantified at 40% by the court below is
the having regard to the manner in which the
” ” ~ ‘accident occizrred.
Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for the
‘:1-es.p.o§ndent – insurance company sought to Justify the
9’ Liiidgment and Award passed by the Tribunal by contending
gtz
10
that having regard to the law prevailing as on the date of the
Award, the deduction of one–third of the income’4…of.4:’_’the
deceased towards his personal expenses is justagrid’ _
and it does not call for interference_._ §t””isi:’_’:alsoV’*.hisi ”
submission that having regard to
accident occurred, that too thelscooterihaVingl’ihAit:._:th.e.
from behind in broad daylightVAs.at:p”‘2. “pin, .the..fi’ribunal is
justified in quantifying the negligence on the
part of the deceased
15. We see the contention of learned
counsel for the ‘regard to the deduction of
one–third of the mon–th’l;3f’ of the deceased towards his
4_personal§gexpensesd: Apex Court in SARLA VERMA’s
held that where the deceased has left
V numbering four and more upto six, the
deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is to
taken’ at 1/ 4*”. Admittedly, there were four dependants to
theiildeceased. Since this appeal is being disposed of by this
‘court now we are required to correct the Award of the
Tribunal by applying the law as it stands today which is
(7
figz
11
SARLA VERMA’s case [supra]. Therefore, the loss of
dependency in this case has to be quantified by ded»u_ctin.g
1/431 of the monthly income of the deceased T.
35/,' personal expenses. g
16. There is no dispute that the_ deceased asglfider’l’of’:th;elVKg
scooter was going behind the in_ubroad:: and
rammed the lorry from beliiniel wavslbrlyought to
a sudden halt on encountered
by the driver of as rider of the
scooter oughtfitoygg from the heavy
vehicle goiizig -he having not done so, the
Tribunal, in our vievvil .–i:s’~~.:justified in quantifying the
c_ontribut}orytlnegligence on the part of the deceased at 40%
the amount equivalent to 40%, from the
v1iabillit}’;.«t,o ‘good by the other tortfeasor. Therefore,
We do not reason to interfere with the said finding
relcfordedgbyll the Tribunal. The award under conventional
if ‘4’ is just and proper.
view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed
if A in part. ‘ W
12
18. The compensation towards loss of dependency after
deducting 40% towards contributory negligence
deceased is quantified at Rs.5,18,400/– [4,500 — .
of 4,500) 2 2.700 x 12 x 16]. Thus the _.appe11aznis’ entitled. ‘ at
to total compensation of —
Rs.4»,75,000/– awarded by the tribiiiial. X
19. The enhanced carry
interest at 6% per I,_the petition till
the date of the p — insurance
company compensation Within
four weeks,’ fr-_oniV’the_::datei_A:”of_ the receipt of copy of the
Judgment.
V’;30.” apportionment and disbursement of the enhanced
e i Awardxhof the titbjnfiai.
compensation sha11_be in the same ratio as indicated by the
Sd/~
EUDGE
Sd/e
” JUDGE