1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKR
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWRD
DATED THIS THE 05"':mx OF SEPTEMBER 20Q§ttt~fyt.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V- :SABHAflIT 'f'
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JusT:cE'$;N,sAT$A§ARA$3fifif»-"5
MISCELLANEOUS AppEAL_fic§5§32/2Go4t_ V}
BETWEEN:
Anasuyamma 5 --
W/o late ShivappaAw_'=,'
Aged about 33.years,' _«,--x
R/o Rajanéhaili vilLagé,"._"'"~~
Harihar,Taluk,j.'
Davanagere}Diétrj¢t5
Netravathi,. V ~, 2.;
3/0 latetShivappa."V_
Aged ab¢ut*19'ye&rs{
Student, _ "' '
RFD Rajanahaili village,
fi"& Harifiar"Taluk,
':tBavanagerévDistrict.
.'7.tai1駧aV'tt
A3/0 late Shivappa
Aged about 15 years.
.'AABeeréfipa
«f _S/0 late Shivappa
{_Agéd about 13 years.
tPetitioners 3 and 4 are
Minors, Rep.by their
Natural guardian mother,
Who is the petitioner No.1
M Appellants
{By Sri.N.K.Siddeswara, Adv)
e€R2 and R3 are eerved,v
1. P.Subramanyam,
S/o Periyanan,
Major,
Driver of Lorry _,m.
Bearing No.TLS~3075, V
R/o Thammanapattl v1llage,E
Attur Taluk,
Salem,
Tamil Nadu State.
2. M.K.Raja, , »~
S/o Garuppanna Gonnderf
Major, '«~-- 1
R/o G.T.CompleX, V V
Bangalore Bye~passWRoad."_ja
Kr1shnag1ri,a'a I 9 -
Tamilnadu; "'
Branch Officegf' , _
81«D; Chettyg$t:eet;wd*
Tirudechenagudi,"H."
Tamil Nadu, 'd'_«o
Rep.by its Branch Manager.
'-- V V"° ' m Respondents
3. National*§nsfi;ance”fio.Ltd{,5
‘v Afiotiee fo&R1 dispensed with)
aX_This”iAappeai is is filed under Section
.~ze_173{l) of MV Act against the judgment and award
dated 29.6.2304 passed in ¥WC.No.598/99 on the
_ig_fiie of the Addl.Civil Judge {8r.Dn) and MACT,
-,aRanebennur; partly’ allowing the claim petition
%4fo£~ compensation and seeking enhancement of
Compensation.
u'””Th1s appeal coming on for Hearing this day,
Vd*.$atyanaryana 3., delivered the following:
JUBM3NT
This appeal is filed by the ciaimaats* in 5; *
Mvc.No.s98/1é99 challenging the judgment, and
award dated 29.6.2004 passed lfif £h9;§@3iti5fia§wt_?
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & AMACT, Ranebennu;,i$eeking}d
enhancement of the compensation awarded fot the
death of K.T.Shivappa,mwho ia the hgsbafid”of lst
claimant and father of claimanta 2 to 4L’
2. The factS: of .the _caae data that, on
3.7.1999 a£hxaha§td’9;hfidi§jm;;x the deceased
K.T.Shivafinad:waa wdatr§ifi§’_miihv on his bicycle
from Rajanahailiadtocdfiatihar. While he was
proceeding neat Kodi§af”Hospet, a lorry baaring
3No,TLS§§0?5. came “from’ opposite direction in a
hash and negiidént manner and dashed against the
vcycie;”FAa’afféault of which he fell down, the
said iérpygyafi over the head of K.T.Shivappa, he
Mflddied*at the spot of accident.
_c3. Thereafter, the claimants filed petition
d”»hefore the claims Tribunal seeking compensation
:for the death of K.T.Shivappa. The said
“”3
petition was filed against the driver, owner and
insurer of the lorry bearing No.TLS-3075. In tner,
said proceedings,” petition against respondent :~’
No.1/Driver is dismissed, respondent Ne Zfiewner
remained exparte and respondent ‘fio;3finsurerV,_f
entered appearance and filed_written statement;
4. Based on the. pleaeings;s issues .$ere
framed. On behalf of the ¢1g;matt5,sdFF claimant
got himself examined as”?W}1 and ne get examined
one witness as . and.mar.’§ed to P16
seeking «in .ali afi-ceepensation in a sum of
Rs.1o,16}oo9/~v sits ‘itta£e§t’ at 18% p.a.. from
the date ‘.gf,V petition’ till the date of
erealisation of coepensation. The respondent No.3
Wdid not lead any evidence.
A5; On.a§preciation of the facts of the case
dtg_and also looking in to the oral and documentary
i’_evidenee on record, the Tribunal was pleased to
“»_a§ats compensation to the claimants in a sum of
had’-_A”Rs:é,46,0OG/– under the heads as follews:~
1) loss of dependency Rs.2,16,GOO/*
2) loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/~
“”1
3) loss of love & affection Rs. 10,000/~
4} loss expectancy of life Rs. 5,000f- _
5) loss of estate Rs. 5,000/af”
….–….u-…._.–…..u….._..-….u…._….–…..–n….
………._._._……’………….-….V_._’……..,._….—
The claimants being’ aggfei§ed ébfitithe
quantum of comepnsation awatdeo in the Ttihenal
have preferred this veppeali $eehih§a_enhahcement
of the same.
6. Hearei the “ieefizedfi Counsel for the
‘ .
‘parties.
7. fifter gi§ihgh”ahXibus consideration to
the argumente~advaficedVB§ the parties and after
5going.throegh the material on record, this Court
is Of the ofiinion that the compensation awarded
vunder the head er loss of dependency is meager
if. and the .Couit below ought to have taken the
‘fiiificome,flofN the deceased at Rs.80/– per day
i ineteed”of Rs.60/~ per day while calculating the
iliossfliof dependency. If the income ;of the
hVeideceased is taken as Rs.80f- per day and
:considering his age as 35, by applying the
‘M1
multiplier of 15 and after giving 1/3″ deduction_
to his personal use, the loss of dependeh¢ystofhV
the claimants would be Rs.2,8e,ooa/w insteadaofh
Rs.2,16,000/*. This Court is “of. the lo§§hiofif;H
that the compensation awarded iufifierh the ,heads*hhh
loss of consoritum, loss to expectancy of life
and loss of estate is just ehonoroperr*«fiowe§er,
the compensation awaroeo eeder the head loss of
love and affectton shofild the ‘1§¢tga$ed from
Rs.:o,ooo/» to st i5,épo{4f st; the reason that
the deceased hes iéft géhifid hio three children
and therhoompeesetéonfl”eQaroeo hot the rate of
Rs.5,ooo/%_ tic: hi§§¢htr=eh1id, it would be
Rs.15,ooo/–E=and theg sate would be just and
,?F0Pe§*gC§mP§nsationWcunder that head. The
hTribhna1 or»has”ve also nagéaeed
gmRs& W
fllto award
compefisatiofifi ‘towards the funeral expenses,
‘thence, =this’ Court awards a sum of Rs.5,G0O/-
u'”otofiards the funeral expenses.
98. Taking in to consideration the enhanced
Vh*q_oompensation under the aforesaid heads, the
;”total compensation that the claimants would be
W7
entitled to is Rs.3,28,000/~ instead of
Rs.2,18,000/-. Accordingly, the aforesaid p
amount of Rs.3,28,000/- is awarded to %h%fi;’m
claimants in this appeal. In so far» as “theA
other aspects, the judgment and mewaidiiof. the ,_f
Tribunal remains unaltered. _
9. In view of the above; ‘the appeali is
allowed in part.
10. The{“éfi?d respondent, id” directed to
deposit theu {§ofieneati§Qio-am¢ent before the
Tribunal _and ithewnTribdnal’ Shall apportion the
compensation and also make an order for deposit
of a portion §£_¢hé compensation payable to each
*iof-tfieiciainants infla nationalised Bank, after
the i¢¢mp§nga£;p§. amount is deposited by the
‘ =.second respondent.
Sd/-3-;_’__
Judge
S51/i
Nd] Iudge