IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 161"" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2010
B E F O R E
THE HON 'BLE MR.-JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPAI;A"C{0WDA
M.F.A.No. 13689 of 2006k(1vIV) A
BETWEEN:
1. Sakeena, 39 yrs.,
W/0. late Abdulla,
2. Siddique, 19 A
S/(). 1ateAbdui'}a.," _
3. A
D /o; iajte _Abdu11a.'\_v
S/*0... _V1atevAl_3d1;1i.:1,--~1'
V. A_
+.1gte Abdulla,
8 yrs.,
3',*oA.A1ate Abdulla,
A .. Apfiéllants 3 to 6 are minors
Rep. by their mother/ natural
A Guardian Smt. Sakeena --
A Appellant N0. 1.
All are R/at. No.49,
Opp. MSR Hospital,
New BEL Road,
Bangalore -- 560 094.
h' 0 * '
(I3YSr1.R.ChandrashekaIf.~AC1V.} 13:. 0
AND:
1. M.Manjunath, rna]o1*,__
S/o. N.l\/Iurthy, 00
R/at. GouriNi1_aya, _ "
AnJar1eyaTemp_1e»..street,_V 2 '
Opp. Coconut Groove~,.__ Z V V
Hebbal Kempapura._,._ V' A
2. The:Di1ii'si.onal.M'a.nage.rl;
The Owrierit l11S'u._1fa;t:iee., Q03 , Ltd. .
[DO-I; t."Ijr_oth't1flaha.l complex,
"St.:1\/Iarl{'s:"road,"'«._ 0 '
Ban§_.§aIo're 4 .11"
ll _ '_ 7 " V. . Respondents
O';M.a..hesh, Adv. for R2,
notice to R. 1 dispensed with.)
=i==i_,594"l /2002 on the file of the IX Addl. Judge, Member
- '7, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area,
_ "Bangalore, {SCCH--7), partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for hearing, this day,
the Court delivered the following: 'i
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the petitioners. .–‘ivir;.:,ji’\bdi11la,
about 43 years, husband of first :appellai1’t’ jandlfiatiitfi’ of –:
the other appellants, having-sostainled. ..1n~’3a
vehicle accident, died petition filed
under Seo.166 of beenllpailowed by the MACT
in part. CoVrripe_nsaf§i{3’I’]:» determined at
30% contributory
negli’gen_cexVof’~the”dece’as_ed.5- Abdulla, Rs.1,’77,000/– was
deductedland Rs.4, 13,000/– has been made.
the’-petitioners have preferred this appeal.
he ” ‘Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and
perused’ records.
” h “3: Learned Counsel for the appellants contended
it that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that
is 30% contributory r1egliger1oEby the deceased —
,/’
Abdufia. He further contended that the loss of
dependency assessed by the Tribunal is on Iowerfside and
there is no just award by the Tribunal.
4. Per contra, Sri.O.Mahes_h, the”1’ea1jn’ed C.ounsei:”~..
appearing for the second responde’nit~”– ”
taking me through saketch the scene
of occurrence, contends rtas only on
account of rash vehicle by the
deceased –‘_Ai::dui1a.;:””‘that this is a case
wherein, to be attributed to
the further contended that,
without being placed on record,
“ha_S_______taken the income of the deceased at
‘ month. He would conclude by contending
that ‘th_e,..3’tacts and material circumstances, the award
passedjbgf the Tribunal is just compensation.
A 5. In View of the rivai contentions, the points for
consideration are : g
/.
{i} Whether there is any contributory negligence
on the part of the deceased — _Abdnl.1a for
occurance of the accident in question; _.__ it
[ii] What is the 311st coInpe_nsat_.ion” ~ :t_h,e”ap”pe11an’tsVI
are entitled to ‘P
. Re. Point No.1 :
él P.W. 1 has spoken is not an
eye witness. To Police have relied
upon EXs.P.1 No doubt Ex.P.2
— the the deceased has
the collision between the
two ifehiclels In the absence of an eye
witness accoii-.nt’*Vfoi’*'”the incident, the Court has to look
into the rriateriai””cireun’1stances, i.e. the Poiice records.
‘llP_olIic§:’«..ai’te1=a.:Vthorough investigation have charge sheeted
the fmotor cycle. Charge sheet is at Ex.P.6. The
Aydoenrnents as at Exs.P. 1 to R6 being not under challenge,
though Ex.P.2 shows that the deceased had entered
xlthe main road, the rider of rrttor cycle which is
‘3/-*’
9-”
comparatively a heavy vehicle, could have avoided the
accident. In the circumstances, the the
=4
Tribunal, which are inconsistent with no
contributory negligence, has to-he held as Ifi..Ath’e it
face of the Police records which
the MACT ought to have ..thatv.th.e’ has taliten
place on account of” the part of
rider of the motor of contributory
negligence ijbyvihtiifevivevidence on record,
has to be record would prove that
to the occurance of
the accideiflt in
:
had provision store business which are
evidentfroni Exs. 13.7 and R8. P.W.1 has spoken to about
nth__e avocation of the deceased. He was aged about 43
years as on the date of the accident, which is evident from
“hpost mortem report M Ex 13.4. Deceased was maintaining
K7
his Wife. a groWn–up son and four minor children. ___He was
the only bread earner in the family. Tribunal
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/–, 4_
to be without any material support-..
doing provision store business in;_Banga1o1’e, *Inain–tain1’ng
a big family iike the present onercouuid— to earn
at least Rs.4,000/– . Since it ‘more than four
dependents were unit method
has to be of dependency. In
the itéwould be just to take the
incomeiof per month. 1/4th
will hair’e.,Vto be personal expenses. Loss
of dependencgi Rs.3,000/– per month. Multiplier
the matter in terms of the decision in Sarla
’14’. Thus, loss of dependency would
Corrie to R’s’.’;E”),04,000/-. Under the conventional heads, i.e.
i’oss_of”consortiuIn, ioss of iove and affection and funerai
andiiobsequies ceremonies, etc. there has to be an addition
E:
W
of at least 10% of the award amount i.e, Rs.50,00__(_)/–. In
all, the appellants are entitled to Re.5,54,o0o/–..(-i
In the result, in modification of the 4_
award passed by the Tribuna1;”the« fiG’1Cu1’f
entitled to total compensation:__
interest at 6% on the enhaiieed cotriperisationgdddfrom the
date of filing of the its”p’ayn1ent. The
apportionment ratio asV_oi’derie_d intact.
Respon_dei§ets_Varegfadntedd. time to deposit
the baianee met
Sdfi’
EUEQE