IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
PRESENT:
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 1.: f _
M.F'.A.No. 5911 OF 2005 (:vavifj.. V'
cm EEE '-
M.F.A. cR0B.2,;_14 OFxi~3008{ 4' A - T
M.F'.A.N0. 5911 OF 2005
Between:
New India AssL;i'aIieeV._Co11<ip.ai1y A
Representedvby- --tE1_e Divisional Manager,
Bazaarve'S'tf<:'etV,"ii'
Yeshawanth ptirf,' . V " '
Bangaldzje.' _ V
....Appe11ant
[By §§ri; aipraléaeh, Adeocate}
I 1:'. -.s.r§itv.1VNaga1'amb:ka,
C Major.
2. J:['=1a§ri.}:1 Chandra,
_ 7Ma_§GIT..
A 3.' --..IgNithan Chandra.
Respondent No.1 is Wife,
Respondent No.2 & 3
Are sons of the deceased
C.Jayachandra.
All are residing at No.170,
K.K.Ha11i, Hennur Main Road,
St. Thomas Post,
Bangaiore.
4. Smt. Leera Violet D.I\/Ieilo,
W/o. Wired D. Meilo,
No.69/ 2, Near Charnundi Nagar-,–r
Bus Stand,
R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore.
‘ “e.’.LRes:pondents
(By Sri. R.Chandrashekar, for.~M:/s. “Lawyers~Net,..”Advocate
for R1 to R3; ‘__ ,
Notice to R4 dispensed w1’th V]dated??.2/O6/2007)
‘***3?*** ‘ ‘« ‘. ‘ .
f1’1ns”MF.A is’i:’ffi1ed’»U’/S 1f7:’3(‘1) of MV Act against the
judgment and awardrdatedvv:.__15/02/2005 passed in MVC No.
6391/2003. on the me” aft-he,…Iv Addl. Judge, Court of smau
Causes and Me1r1bei’,’IvEA€.T, Bangalore, (SCCH–6), awarding
compensation of.?’}–_3,A¢E-_0.GOO/– with interest at 6% p.a., and
to set aside the seine.
‘V 1′ I»1.§§’..x. ;eiRoB.214 or 2008
1. ‘d:..Na.ga1a§7nb:ka.
Wflo. Late C. Jayaehandra,
_ V.Aged—-E;30 years.
A’ =2′. = .}..:Naveen Chandra,
S/o. Late C.Jayaehan ra,
T Aged 29 years.
/, WWW
3. J. Nithin Chandra,
S/o. Late C.Jayachandra,
Aged 26 years.
All are R/at. No.170,
K K Halli, Hennur Main Road,
St. Thomas Town Post,
Bangalore.
O-tjjectors –« ..
(By Sri. R. Chandrashekar, for M / s.v.Lawj,rers–‘_’Net, f&d’yocatfes)l7–.&
And:
1. New India Assurance Co., Ltd4′.’,~»._
No.47, Gopal Complex, 2110′ Flvoor,’
Bazaar Street, Yeshwjanthpura
Bangal0re–22. ‘ ” ._ _ .,
Represented by its Manager, 1;. }
2. Leera Violet,-D.g1\/iellri, 2′
W/0._Wiredp D.1~i.,/1_e11.:,_”‘ _ ”
Major,
R/8:? NO: 59/?..’;=-_, , 2 _
Near”Chamundi<n'agar,,_ ._
Bus Stand, 2 2
Ba;1n"g'a.lore-.'3'2..V_ V
.. . ———- …Resp0ndents
'[B§lfSri." aipira-kash, Advocate for R1 ;
Notice dispensed with v/ o. dated 23/ 10/2010)
*°!=****
'I'l1'iS -l\rfl7A'A.Cr0b.214/2008 in MFA No.5911/2005 is
filed U 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the judgment and
" "award dated: 15/02/2005 passed in MVC No. 6391/2003
Conltlie file of the IV Addl. Judge, Member, MACT, Court of
_ Srfia1.l= Causes, Bangalore, [SCCH~6}, partly allowing the
, _ ' claim petition for compen ation and seeking enhancement of
,,co'mpensation.
Md
The M.F.A. and M.F.A.Crob. coming on for Hearing
this day, N.K. PATIL J, delivered the following:
MUDGMENE
This appeal by the Insurer and the Cross
Objection by the claimants are directed
same judgment and award dated 15/02/ in K
MVC No.6391/2003 on the fi1et,:Joff’%[ Ada1′.”.JiédgeV,:’
Court of Small Causes and Mernbier. Motor dA:cc£ijent:”‘,,
Claims Tribunal, Banga1orei’,’w.. ‘ {hereinafter
referred as ‘Tribunal’i2az’sho;rt).,e_ at ” _
2. By the impL:gn_e’d ‘ award, the
Tribunal has sum of ?13,40,o0o/– with
interest £fd1’n:..’the date of petition till payment
V. ,_ as ,_a§ainst,Vvthe c1airn..rnade by the claimants for a sum of
on account of the death of the deceased
C.’ in the road traffic accident.
“In brief, the facts of the case are:
claimant No. is the wife, claimant Nos. 2
3 are the c n of the deceased Sri. C.
J ayachandra and they have filed a claim petition before
the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V.Act. claiming
compensation against the respondents, on account of the
death of the deceased in the road traffic accident,
contending that, on 22.11.2003 at about;’i’;–5.Q.’__lpl,Vin,,~.
when deceased was standing on the left_sid.,e”:’0f -« .,
infront of his Scooter opposite Gurilféij Bai’..o’n l’Se_rvicel
road, Hennur Ring roadf Bangalore, ate.’tiiat,_V_tirne,Vlad;
lorry bearing No. KA.O5.61 -r.l,1:_&m.’,1_»e highlfspeed in
a rash and negligentrnannep’an’d’g’vvd:as.hed against the
deceased’; to’: which “he l feilwdown, sustained injuries
and the thenfurther case of the claimants
that, deceased 54 years, hale and healthy,
wo:fl{ing__g:as__ Intefior…..Decorator and getting the income of
_than:v’«.t?1.5,000/- per month and looking after the
welfare Voigthellfamily and due to his untimely death
clairnantgs V have suffered financially as they have lost
A “:l,”theli’r~«_.only source of living. The said claim petition had
come up for considgétion before the Tribunal. The
fl
/
Tribunal, in turn, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence and other material available on
file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded
the compensation of ?13,40,000/- under differentlieads
with interest at 6% pa, from the date of
payment. Being aggrieved by the said ‘»
award, the Insurer has filed
contending that, the inconi_e«–..of the. deceased; ‘a.sse.sse%d
by the Tribunal at ?’1__5,000/gt:ll’:-;.§er.._»n1onthl_ higher
side and it needs to -the quantum of
Compenslationf, Tribunal under all the
heads is «.eXcessii_ie_’lanld»..it–~ requires to be reduced and
the aamaasy h,aveA”file’d cross objection No. 214/2008
,.¢.con:tent?lingi– ..’that,'”t’he compensation awarded by the
all the heads is inadequate and it
requ__ires~ tovlbe enhanced.
Z We have heard the learned counsel appearing
. for»-the Insurer and learned counsel for the clairnantsw
-~{3ross Objectors at c derable length of time.
/
5. After careful perusal of the original records
available on file, including the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the
occurrence of the accident and the death «af”»rthe
deceased in the said accident are not in dis’pu.te,’__i’it:__is.,
also not in dispute that, the deceased a._bout–.
54 years working as Interior Deczoratoif fiand .’eraI*nin’g__ an d’
he has filed his Income Tax returns for th.e”‘a_ss_ess::§nent_V”;
year 2002-2003 for ?1,11,40a:/”==,::pax;d for year 2003-
2004 for ?2,15,810»/;;fi7’I’11eL “which comes to
?3.27,V2’1’8’/’-2:15′ “”oi'”‘:these two comes to
?1,63,t§’0£2i/_– ‘which, the income tax of
?14,Q82/-d'”‘isV_’d.educ’ted*”nVas submitted by the learned
for parties after making necessary
calculatioiis permissible under the Income Tax Act,
the.__net.~ comes to ?l,49,S27/– . Out of Which, if
i3Fdz deducted towards personal expenses of the
ihdeceased, the net income comes to ?99,685/–. The
…_appropriate muitiplier licable to the present case is ’11’
___’__l_____N_,___,,..»
since the deceased was aged about 54 years. Therefore, we
re–detern’1ine the compensation towards loss of dependency
at ?10,96,535/– and accordingly, it is awarded.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the Case, We award a sum of ?10,000/-
of consortium, a sum of §’10,000/–
estate, a sum of ?15,000/– loss”
affection and a sum ?1iO,Q0O’/=3_”transpertatibn°’:
funeral expenses.
7. For the the impugned
judgment’-b.y.t’l1e Tribunal is liable to
be mod_ifi’e4d.’ tot¢:1l:LV’t?.(::)ii1f_ip’ensation payable Comes to
%’11,{};l_v,53o”/~- the bfeak– up is as follows:
‘ V’ .To’ward._sv.L0–ss of defiendency
10,96,535/–
‘l”‘owa’:dsi loss “of Consortium 1 0,000 / —
3
._ V V % 2′
/. ‘l’oward”s._lossAoflove and affection ? 15,000/–
?
?
10,000/-
10,000/-
A;i:es;»u1_rards’l’o»s_s’of’ estate
Towards .fCi1f1€1’a1 and transportation
expenses ‘ ‘
‘Total 2’ 11,41,535/-
8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurer is
aiiowed in part and the Cross Objection filed by the
claimants is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The impugned judgment and award pa_s§:se’d’»
Tribunal in MVC No. 6391 /2003′ is hereb3£i[‘1Vmoa:fied:,i’ ‘er
awarding compensation of ?1:l,41’,’5r35 “instead
?’13/10,000/– as awarded bjr_vt’h.e Triburial.
compensation comes to %.”1,9Epi,.41u6:p’5/ –‘;.._j _
The Insurer _ deposit the
compensationva;rr1ount;_’ atflxj/o p.a., from the
date oft’pe’ti’tio::1 tiii?~§i’ts ‘rea’iisation;’V’within a period of four
‘_ weeks i°rom..the. receipt of a copy of this judgment
and award.” =
apportionment of the compensation anrount
claimants and the manner of disbursement
shalt be proportionately reduced to the extent of the
“reductio.,ri of the compensation by this Court.
.f=Draw the award cordingiy.
E0
The statutory deposit made by the Insurer shall
be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
Sri. R. Jaiprakash, learned counsel ~
permitted to file vakalth within_,fou1f weeks i’r_1
Cross objection.
tsn*