MFAS5§{}. 05
IN THE HIGH com? or xARr:Ar;s.;»:L; if
cmcurr BENCH A3’1’_” Ti ”
mrran THIS THE 17″! DAY 791%’
rmamgr =
THE I-IOIPBLE Mmwsfieg n_EE1i’.A;-:: fifima
‘1’!-IE Honfsm MR.;n:s~i§_r éE 3.3.1):
MI8CELLAH;E+Q;I;’?3F1:R§”‘1f Im{35oo/2005
Between:
The North West’ ¥.a.mataka
Road. ‘I’rax1s§or$VCcx’j’pQrafion”, .. ‘
Central O$,<:e,«.Hu3'r-311,7
Repn=:s<=:m:ed=by its " '
Chief Law {L)f{ic::»:r." V
wy 3ffii'5.¢§i'atiL
" «$ri.8.F*:a.ka:ah Shetty,
' ,s'tibi{;!!.Iu!;%.?e.i'-fiese and
.Sr:.Ja@lj§hj'V!I;N. Advs)
AA szni.-siaantawa,
.. 'VJ/o Irappa Nuramianavar,
=..Ag;e:1 48 years,
Mallur,
New at Rio Jallapur,
'f'q:Savan11r.
?- kappa,
S] o I shwarappa N urandanavar,
APPELLANT
MFAESOQO5
Aged 55 years,
Occ:Agricu1tuIe,
R] 0 Jallapur,
(By firtfiuberagonda 8.Ko1-adur
Brhfladan Mohan M.Khannux, A’
This appeal filed under 17 3″ (.1) of against
the judgment and award datcd°=.28.05.2005 VA passed in MVC
No.27?/2002 on the file pf theAVCiv::i-Judge (Sx~.2f)x1,)F&–, AMAC3′,
Havcri, awaxtling compensation fof Rs’;3._,2,1′,0.00/~ with interest at
6% 13.21. fimn the date of peiifion ‘:i1f’;*Ifas1i$ation.
This appea1_”cQming”‘ day, Dcepak
VeIma.J., deliver::<i';?;;?; foflowiizzg: .. '
" {he appellant. Sri.Kubcragouda
S. Koragiur app€iar:§AAfo1*"th.é: mépondents.
ofice note, this appeal is barred by one day.
ibfiién flied for condonation of delay. For the
_rcasoiis assigwfiéd in the said application, we are satisfied that
H " 'T haé. 'béen explained properly and to our satififaction. Delay
gcndoned. IA stands closed.
‘ IA-E/2005 has been filed for grant of stay and a memo has
been filed for transfer of the amount. Looking to the facts and
MFA8S0(}.E}S
3
civcumstances of the case, we thought it proper to ‘hear the
matter on merits, rather than to consider
Accordingly, we have heard the learned coungeltvjtfor
perused the records.
4. Appellantvcorpoxationl of V”t.1te’
before us in this appeal filed 11} 1) Vof–t_i§.eV’:Mo’VtotVVVehicles
Act, 1988 (hereafter against the
award dated 23.052005 mm, Haveri in
MVC whereunder for the death of
MurigesI*t;._ ” V Vflbeejti awarded total amount of
Rs.3,21,000}’ togetiaet “{=§*it1::;interest at 6% p.a. fivom the date of
the till ite gpayment.
for the appellant—CoIporation strenuously
us that the amount awarded is on the higher
Vtt”‘~..«.._–si,de and multiplier of 1’? adopted by the Tribunal is Wrong,
looking to the age of the claimants i.e., the pamnts of
luthetizieceased.
Per contra, learned counsel for the ciaimauts submitted
that the Tribune} also committed an error in deducting 50% of
“H5
MFASSUQGS
the amount earned by the deceased towanrls.
expenses, otherwise the amount awaxded is just’
reasonable, which calls for no iI1tf3rf(31;f:l1Ct};’– A. 3 ll
7. The accident had takeI1″:pl;.2;§:e en. wlilenvl
deceased was travelling as a veycie, hit by
a bus bearing driven raslfly and
negligently by its driver. dash caused
by the driver ll appellant, deceased
Mung’ esh fell fiaatbr and sustained bodily
injuries’ 7,249 had died on the spot itself.
8. At the of .dea’£hV,H.NIurigesh was aged about 25 years,
ll asna la firm at Byadag and earning a salary of
Apart from this, as per the averments
made__ the he was also having separate income fmm
._7agricu1tu;~§;;:d
” is not been disputed before us, which even otherwise
: proved from the evidence available on record and issues
.. :Nos.l, 2 and 3 framed by the Claims Tribunal that accident had
eecurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of
To
MFAESOQOS
5
the bus of the Coxporation driven by its driver. ‘i’hus,VJit’.dis not
necessary for us to reconsider the issue with deed
negligent driving of the bus. We endorse the
by the exams Tribunal and hoid thatddeeeeteng zaae” giéced 7. dd
solely due to rash and negligent ‘tee hue its
£0. From pamgmph 10 of the’V”§2:V::1’pug:ned’ that
the income of the deeeasg-:d…_31as_.’1§’egtn.: e£V’Ré;3,O90/~ per
month. Since he was a bacfieief; has been
deducted Remaining 50°/o has
been 4′ of the Ciaimants. In our
considered committed an error as far as
, ,this azepeet of geefier is concerned. There have been
gudgmexrte ef Court as Well as of the Supreme Court, wherein
itd”:h:ezAe.*1;seevI’i in case of bachelor, 50%» of the amount is to
V be ‘iewanis personal expenses of the deceased. But,
V Wefe the cases Where deceased was stationed in
‘_ 1Mefi~6p6litan cities like Bombay, Delhi, eazcuea, Madras and
VT where there are many avenues available to young
” ddeaxfijng deceased to spend money. Admittedly, in this case
deceased was resident of Yellapur which is a small town, Where
MFASSGOIBS
application till its actual payment. The appeal stands A +-
in the light of the aforesald directions. Parttc. _’_s ti)”
respective costs.
jml –