IN 'THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 19*!» my op' DECEMBER, ._
PRESENT
THE HOWBLE MR.JUSI'ICE»{)EEP!§f<i§E§§v$§L"
THE HOPFBLE MR;L;¥_ifSf£'ICf:i"KV:RAMA;l'§¥i'~!§i'--v
mm 1$'c3.'.?V"_r'+'__#f:{A}',{.2s*;3;t,v_3*_'§ J
§....-'l'3T.._'Y§'...Ii3.E--'3...lE.;
I Anugmha 1', V
VVS/b1a$"¢.Jaé¢'b --.
2 Dilsarp
26 yrs. . _
' 310 lateqaczcb '-
» lain Jacob
-.- r/o ofCyn'l Compound
. Rakshapura,
' * Hassan 573 201
(By Smt Bhushani Kumar, Adv.)
1 %1a§.i
BalajiTra11aprt Co.
10"' Cmss, Ashak Nayr
'I'umkur
2 The Oriscntai Insurance Co.Ltd
B.H.Road,'I'iptur '
P.No.1997/5'72 Valid upto 14/8/97
3 K V Mensa Shankar
S/0 K C Krishnappa
KRS , B.M.Rt>$s1.i
Kunigal '
(owner of Car MFG] 3880}
4 The National
Branch Ofioc " % ' 1 ' V-
Vivekananda Road
M Rcspandcnts
' _ '(By Y'i~§g:"gr__lc M , Adv for R-2
'=Sr'i Adv for R~3
- Sri AN 'Kfishnaswamy, Adv for R-4
V " " ' R---1 served}
~ appeal' led under Section 173(1) A of MV Act
_fh:é"j1_z&g,1nez1t and award dated 25-6-2004 passed in
Mxrc No.<?31 ;:9? on the file of the AddI.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) as
A:i~d1.miAc:'r;' 'I'u1nkur pamy allowing the claim pctiticm for
Aocmgictgisafion and seeking enhancement of campcnsation.
This appeal having been imaxd and mscrvod, coming
' V "£311 for pronouncement this day, RAMANNA d., ticlivcred the
foikrwing:
JUDGMENT
The appellant/claimants have come up
appeal seeking enhancement of
the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn..} ‘in
MVC.781[1997, clatsd 25-06-2004; X T
2. Brief facts of the iht; who-
am the brothers and fsistcr 9f: Alish.
have filed claim’ T_rih1ma.1 clamun’ ‘ g
compensation fervthc brother, who
died fin that took place on 14-07-1997
while tm_ve1nn’g.fixm 2 : K–u:n””1’g’ .al to ‘I’umkur aflrr his office
hmfxs in TRcgn.No.MEG~383O which coiludcd
‘ Eiis ‘ g’vv”}§{$.KA-O6-9996 near Snkan’ taxahna’ palya
:.v_t,T1’g at 6.30 pm. The Tribunal after <:oz1sidem1g'
tA1:1r;__V cvfldcncc placed before it awarded a
Aoomgiafiéafion of Rs.l,78,40()[– to the appellants, with
K ' * intfiitst at 6% p.a.
3. Admittedly, appclhnts were the Legal
rcpmscntativcs and dcpcndanm of the deefisxscd Edward
Alish. The accident in question occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Exs. P. 11
clearly indicate that the accident occurred due ef _
the driver of the bus in quesfion. Further, u D»
nespendent No.2] insurer to pay
also not in dispute. since _tht_:
respondent no. 1 owner of the ‘h1_1s ae on the
date of accident. No been filed
chaucnging the findm’ gg .b3>fitk§e’_’_*I’Iihunsl in mm
4; » the compensation awarded
byjzhe 01$” the lower side and the income of the
fag the Tribunal at Rs.1,700/- gun. to
of compensation is incorrect So also,
$t’–.’..’g3 made is also ineoztrect. Hence, sought for
V AAenhaiu:.ement of oompensafion.
5. Acooxtling to appellants, the deceased was a young
aged about 26 years as on the date of his accidental
death and had tmdergorm: training at various centers as per
Ex.P.5 to 9 and passed National Apprenticeship certificates
sponsored by Ministry of Labour. Govt. of India and
Industrrial Training Institute. He joined as a
Mechanical at H as R Johnsons India
probation and was getting a sum of Rs. 3
course, during the evidence of
Tribunal that apart from the» by finytkifigv. _
in a bar was further carmn’ r,V
considering the fact thagno-was on moord
to ihé claim petition, the ‘I’rihun.a1
dcclincii had taken the income of the
_§tV”Rs’;1,’i.’O0/– p.m. by relying on Ex.P.5.
that the deceased was big’ hly quahfi ed
undergone various training in several ficlds
thy-at was working on probation on the date of his
death, if he would have been alive, he must have
not Less than R’s.3,000/- p.1n., but the Txibzlaai
to consider this fact. F’u.3’thcr the Tribunal erred in
appiying thc multiplier ’17’ by taking into considcratien the
age of the deceased to assess the Loss of dependency of the
appellants. Considering the facts and of the
case, the Tribtmal ought to have taken the age pf .’
No.3 to assess the £035 of dependency..dof..Vva’§)jse<llaote,
accordingly considering her age es ye:-ize,'1
of accidental death of Edwaxd 'dthe e»
have applied the muI1:ipliet""e«e.':1'4' to of V
dependency. However; waea Eachebr as
on the date of his made by
the of the deceased is pmper and
the loss of dependency of
apépeik.-u.1ts 51;» gun. and Rs. £8,000/– p.a. [i.e.,
applying the proper multiplier 'I4',
'q R be entitled to compensation of
towards 'lees ofdepcndcncy'.
.. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/-
‘transportation and funezal expenses’. However, it
in not awarding any amount towards ‘loss of esmie’,
‘loss of Iove and afi’ectioI1’, ‘transportation charge’, ‘funeml
cxpmscs and obaoquics’. Thus, wt: award a_.-global
compensation of Rs.40,000/ – under the above .
7. Accozriingly, appellants am cntifiiiéadri ..%’.g5a_§;,
compensation of Rs.2,92,ooo/– wi1.a».in:cm_s£§t’ %
the date of pcfifion till it is ‘iv
8. Accordingly, appcsfl, in L’
and await! mssod by 11.5′ to the
aforesaid extent shall deposit that
compensation today. Amount
Respondent No.2 to
bcarthéggist of Lama’ ‘ out. counsers fee is fixed
at
561/
Iudgi
Sd/-9
Iudgé