MFA.N0.351/2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS THE 13"! DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2(i1{ij--,:..
PRESENT __ %
THE HON'BLE MR.
THE I-ION'BLE MR.
Miscellaneous Firs__t Appe;§}%T'1§.z c;.E351/T2065}
BETWEEN: V A T' V
THE BRANCH MANAGER . f
ORIENTAL INSURANCE; co, L*1*1)_,j; _
VISHNU PRAKASH EL:1L.D1NEi_ 4_ "
UDUPI '
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER V
OREENTAL INSU, "V'C;EV,c0.._ LTD. A 1.
REGIONAL OF'FICE _
LEO SHOPPING c0r..e:v1.éLEX"vA..E
No.44/45;. RESIDENCYSROT .
BANGALORE1560 025 .. ' ...APPELLANT
{BY SR: M U PQQNACHA, ADV.)
AND:.. _V
' ASOOITMJ
1".' .V:i\rAYA TNAIKV ' '
W/O LATE SABHUJANGA NAIKA
AGED 31 YEARS
.. 'S'/Q LATE BHUJANGA NAIKA
A(}E.D 9 YEARS
' "S/0 LATE BHUJANGA NAIKA
AGED 7 YEARS
MFA.NO.351/2005
4. GOPALA NAIKA
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED 62 YEARS
5. PARVATHI NAIKA
W/O GOPALA NAIKA
AGED 59 YEARS
SINCE DECEASED
REPRESENTED BY R1 TO R4
RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE MIN_O'RS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NE>c1*vSPRI.END ‘
AND MOTHER RESPONDENT NQ_._
ALL ARE R/AT NADU ATHPADY .
POST ATHRADY, UDUPI TO; 5: D.IS<'T;
6. JAGADEESH NAYAKA ” I
S/O APPOJI IIA*I’AI¢A
MAJOR _ s; ~ g I V-
R/AT LAXMI NIVAS , ”
ISHWAR NAGAR :1, ”
MANIFA§;~ ._ _ -»::. A
7. SUDHALARAVISHEEITY .
S/O NAI’\ID'{APPASHE1’IY.___
MAJOR ” I _ fl ”
R/ATM/S RAVI-THA TRANSPORT
V INQRALI ‘ – V
” ‘ _ UD__U~PIb_TAL.:UK ….. RESPONDENTS
‘ gEI’–VSRIv.,M.IRAIVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV. FOR C/R1~R-4;
RSSQRT SERVED}
‘ ._THIS MFAIS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
.JUDGMENT “AND AWARD DATED 11.10.2004 PASSED IN
~. . ‘MVC.NO’;éL3i5/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.
_ . T[)N.I.& CJM & MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
_ ~RS.V5,0’7.000/» WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
‘I =N..R.PAT1L J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A
5”
MFA.No.351/2005
cab No.KA–2O 2484 came in a rash and negligent manner
and suddenly opened the right side of the door and V
sudden impact the deceased fell down and T
lorry bearing No.MEG 8263 calnegfrorn
control and passed over the head o’f._theV_A.dece.a_sed.
sustained grievous injuries. ‘I-edwbas irnmediiately. shifted
to KMC hospital where hexwasgreporlted’to be deadf
3. Respondent. No. ihtd the deceased,
respondent p children and
respondent of the deceased.
The dispute the death of the
deceased in. a road tratllcp accident.
7.:€311..acc_ountlof'”de’ath of the deceased, the claimants
filedva petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles 1988 before the Tribunal claiming
dl’,.,_l’compensation from the appellant and others contending
deceased was working as an electrician and was
Rs.5,000/- per month. The said matter had come
before the Tribunal for consideration. The Tribunal,
as
1”
MFA. No.35 1 /2005
after careful evaluation of the oral and documentary
evidence and other relevant material on record’,”.:’has,4
allowed the claim petition in part and M
compensation of Rs.6,07,000/– with ~inter’est_W@;J–l..z3j0/ti
from the date of petition till the date’.of:’realisatiori.. , ” A
5. We have heard Sri ‘learn:ed:’icounsel
for the appellant for co11sid.era.ble.lengthcf time.” it
6. Learned couinsei sabmitted that the
compensation” towards ‘loss of
depende.ncy’.Aaridl «intere.stlaw;2.rded @ 8% pa. from the
date of Zpetitioriv realisation is on the higher
side and relq-Liires beblielduced. He also submitted that
.–__the of th’e«.dcceased assessed at Rs.5,000/– per
._month is-._on the higher side.
7, careful consideration of the material placed
before the “Court, we do not find any error in the judgment
.._and’*–ailvard passed by the Tribunal. The quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunai is just and
“reasonable on the ground that the deceased Bhujanga
% ./””‘”‘MM’
if! “,-/’
MF’A.N0.351/2005
Naik was the sole bread earner of the family. The
claimants are none other than the wife, children anduthe
parents of the deceased. The Tribunal has right1y”‘aslse~slsed_Itit
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/– ”
of which 1/31¢ has been deducted:…toWards_’ ‘peifsonall
expenses and his income is.»as.sesse’d__lat —
month and by adopting a multiplier loss of
dependency is assessed;::._at _ In of the
law laid down bythe in SARLA
VERMA v_..:_l iclrissmi TRANSPORT
co11Po12__.-§fr€1~:)Vis;i.lt’d 2009 so 3104),
the “towards personal expenses
would bell’-..ll/’4-Ebb’ the same is taken into
i_cons”1’deration, th’e«…_q1o1.antum of compensation awarded
towards”vfloss~.o’f dependency’ is reasonable. We find that
the awarded under other heads is also just
l V and reasonable.
-For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands
it ” dismissed as devoid of mer%} Ordered accordingly.
/,2
MFA.N0.35 1 /2005
The insurer is directed to deposit the remaining
compensation with interest within two weeks from.”a:’t.h”e.’
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and awardo ” V’
The total amount deposited ‘Ljy'”1:he
shall be transmitted to the
forthwith.
hkh