High Court Karnataka High Court

Ninganna vs The Branch Manager The National … on 30 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Ninganna vs The Branch Manager The National … on 30 November, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
I31 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY 09 NOVEMBER, 
BEFORE  " T" 3 %

THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUs'ricj;A>qAwAD"m;H1'n?1 = _

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP?EAL Neg?4475:€l.'G§'*'.?.:Q(i3*;  7

BETVVEEN:

I. NINGANNA
S/O. ISBIEMANNA .
AGE 39 YEARS. '  

2 SIVIT. NINGAMMA__V_ '   '
XV/O.N1N-GANNA' " _ _  - 
BSYEARS   = 

BOTH:AREPxf35R1C[1"§LTU'R.Ai.L COOLI 1+:

R/O. 'B,OMr»LAD'E*JARe--x14LALL1 - -

MOLAKALMURU {'.E'ALUvK_)°'*- .. _ 

CHITRADURGA DISTR1.CV,T~.._  APPE1,1',AN'Ts

{sygjx/1'/;'3, RAMA2_§RisHfJA 31 IBHAT A/S « ABSENT]

A "- THE: :l3§§§€i~;;\{§%: 1-fij' iMA1'\TI.AG ER

TH E NATI'QEfcTj¥I, IN SURANC E1 COMPANY
IfIT{'L)_'. Cf__}'i'i'Ef'EIA[)URGA CITY & DIS'}'RI.CT. WRESPONDENT

V’ 9233′ smzia ARUN PON NAPPA, AIT)\f »» ABSENT)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST 2’~¥jI.3E3EAL ES §*”‘§L}’5;I'[)
UNI)EiR SECTEON 1788) 0? MV ACT AG-AINST THE
JU'[)GME;NT AND JXWARID DATED i0.0′?’.2006 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 145/2003 ON ‘°Fi”IE FILE OF’ ‘FI*iES CIVIL JUDGE
ESREDVN] AND f\DI)L. MACT, CHALLAKERE4 PA.RTLY
AL[,O\?\!ING ‘I”E-IE CLAEM PE'[‘I.’E”‘ION FOR COMPENSA”I’ION

AN D SEEKING FUR”!-‘H ER ENHANC EM E?§’_T -V , ~

COMPANESATION: AN 1) ETC.

“mls APPEAL COMING ON FOR 1+-‘1:.\:_.A i;~–..HEf:gA:”~§1:4G;j

“m1s:)AY ‘1’:-*1’£«: COURT MADE ‘I’I~EE §:*sLL.Qw1NQE s ”

JUDGMENIT X

The judgment and V

in M.V.C, No.145/2003 Qr1″”i:fis fi1_e; of”Aad1f MACT,
Challakere, is

(2. Csuvrissel sidesare absent. However, as

the appeal’ is pgsisai i”0{ ‘fiI’ia1 hearing, p€I”1;l-Séid records.

It re*vea}s t’Hs.,vaAppé:11:3.iI1i:s. sought compensation regarding

dséith V”1.h_ei1″ son Gangadhara in 2}, motor Vehicle

s_1,c’:~i:_iev:11e’:,;~”:fi41:ij’-«r;V> _I1V.28:;’5.2OO3 involving lorry N.KA 19 A 2309.

‘I’h”<';§/ afikégs: that on 28.5.2003 Gangadhara, their son

al0__ng'v§r'ith his f'atI'1er were returning from Sandur and

Erjséitiihsdh "£'hammenaha11i bus stand at 5.15 pm, Whiis

'EA

they were 3;;p'p:"*eaehi§3g the bus Step ihe drixrer of ierry
K9; IQ 1% BSQQ iest eontmh due ta his negiigenee the

ierry" hit against Gangadhar resulting in injureifeee to

which he succumbed. Hie body was shifted

where poet marten: was eendueted and.,Q:~w.Veaee._was ._

registered ageing: the driver fer :r2£Sfh'4'–eeai§d—-.i:e§.g;?3:§'ge:1'£.'

driving.

:3. They sought~..eempe:1eaf:iei:.._ onfhe jfilea that
Gangadhara though agelfl as an

agricultural e2:;2.rr1f;I1:,§ day. They are

his perefits .{2i?i1.r;>f- loss of dependency upon
his deat1’1;.__’ ” V V

The.» ‘e1a,i1§n_.was resisted by the “respondents.

‘ .H(p,ve-vein ftlie tribunal accepted their evidence regarding

L}1e’V«€>ceu.i9ifeV3}iee., The tribunai pieced actienable Wrong

in fiheeriifixxg ef the Larry and held they were entified to

.;ce%i*;.pe::$aiien. But, while quantifying the eemgensatien

2;’

the? iribzlzml ‘:.<31:.2-:11}; m.is:;}uvbtAe’:}I.y” in V

<;10r1trave::"2'{.i()r1 of Seszttiorz 168

whizth requires the ':ri"r3una1'-v.toV ..'3'jus'i;.

Compe13s3.ti0r1". I. am satitsfierl' _g'r0'iL1i1-{ST tfge appea}

are acceptable and' j.jfiiierferefifiieHxwith the
impugned award. ' ' VA "

._ T I of the claimants that
Gangadhajra V W’aS — agé5d ‘ 16 years and engaged in

ag.rj§g:rz1t:~:1ra] yrhicth fact is not disputed by the

:1f’e~s_por;dAe1’1t:VS;.__ The tribunai substituted its opinion

V:€’7%¥.VfVi’VCi{iI1(E!’:’, to hold that Cxang-adha1″a would not

ha\Ic:..be,ef1 earning no minor is entitied to work. On

basis tribzznal holds that Garagadhara {:ar1n0t. be

iiaken as an €E1l’i1iI1g membzzéix Such an ObS€’I””€€ll£i()I1 of
the iriburial is uricalled for as a t.ribLii1al is requirrzd to

CC)F1Sl.Cl63I’ the c;-zviderice 011 recard and not suhsti£ut’_é7ii,s

opinion. Therefore that finding is set aside.

the evicierice it is to be l1<~:'ic;i Gangadhara was as"

claimed by the appellants. T .l

2003. Earriing of an agrict-'ltu.ral d0~0lic w<;=1v,Vil'Ci;!:1{;i.

been less than 3.100/~ was of his

residence was wiihinflj..the{.,';Cl'1-iiracdurga district.
Therefore his income ;i§=-§"t2ilé'<;e-ii' per day. The
secongi" erifb"néous approach of the
i;ribur1a_l. r10tis::t:_d"wtinz'~i.is=._a~wa.rd is having heid that

Claimants parents will be entitled to

°"corrip'ei»i'saf'iQn basétl on their age. the tribunal has

the mult.ip1ier. The Obsen-'ai.i0n of the

tribunav}: isvilffbithe following 2:-f:['ect.

"In the petition it is stated that late:

= Gazigadhara was an agri<:ultui*al 900116. This

.6.

ie given. a gewby by PW. in hiss eviderzee.
‘Fherefe’r*e, I took :10t.i<:sI1al Income of"''—

GaI1ga<iha_ra at 3,50,/'~ per day. PW.l

aged about 60 years at the tmfifisg of *7'

examination. He has admitted .

that his age was 55
examination A boy Qf \x.rlcl)i:_.1A.d’~ .n«;~>t” ll
earn anything till att’a’ir1 a .

Therefore the multiplief’-applieatieallo {be
case is ’16’. T isfanf.taeeeleratienVefufive
years in getting ‘;§’Vhe.3}.e’f?5;;’.el fzive years

of age ._i;o “‘it’::> get the
correct . 1 Vltiiiliiltiplier that

comes ta f11’e01’ig1e’ of Gangadhara

after ‘ _ his personal expenses
Colmesletol If the multiplier ‘9’ is
_ . applied V_:tV0Vt1{:e rietleontributlon to the parents

V Of} V. ‘v»’Eate” « …Gaflgadhara it comes to

l§»{::SA;.1;.’?§}L6OO/w,”

lltkneecis to be reminded that while evolving

eeheme’ to determine compensation on the baeis of

muitipiier 931 Vtssitucie ef Eife has been tzikerx into

consideration to fix mttitipiier en five years p:urtr:1 35 years. The
tribunal has1″;eeer;de’d.:_e§1de1}ee:f_mueh Eater. As on the
date 0112” the.»evider1c.e”‘:t:he age of the second
e1aimégnt*–\Vas or 55 years. Even if We take
age as eh ttdatet xii’ »re«e(51rding of evidence which the

respsndenéts net efivspttted, the multiplier has to be

:,_–sn-t.the the younger of the parents ‘i..e.,

‘ §’€i11.gamma«.eVéit..__32 years. However, since the deceased

Wi~;tis.1fE3 age eouid not have been 32 years at

‘fl’1i3._i1iI_tiEE.£€1’7 aeeidetnt. Therefore reasohabiy it ean be

ixakertz as 40 years and on that basis the mL1Etipiier has

is be chosen. F01′ the ciaimamt. who is aged wi.1:hi.zji 1920

years the rnultiplier applicable is 15. Tfxe _

chosen rnultipiier of “Q” which is Wholly i1′.*~.’:’e ii:~_1b~le”t(:{

aside. The income of the deeeszsed is /- 2 L’

per month, ?.36,000,{_j per 50%
out of 1:. as he was shall be the
multiplicandiv is ’15’ and
therefore be 32,70,000/~,

to which’ be,””-added””Compensation towards

Convefxtienal Eoss of affection, care to
the parents thweyjsafe-.e___”axvarded €25,000/–. Towards
trar1sp0rta’t’io’r1 V of »deé£d body, funeral expenses

3 Ti_5€.{)’VO(),/ ~ isv.’aWa{<H:1_eei, Similarly, towards loss to estate

e1a:i'rr12{1if£.s:V"s.ha11 be entitied to %.20,000/–. In an the
I _'wAie1i—-be entitled to 33,30,000/~. The award is
'H€F1'h_§EIit,;e}:}., ffifejfii 33,29,000/2 to 38,30,000/«. The

-9-

é3nha1m:ed zm1m;::1€, Shexil Carry intereat. at 5′?/{L E10 be
di$(:ha’:’g<3d by the I.r1s2,.1raI1ce Company wit.hir:r"'—-four

weeks. The ;21w"a:1*d is apportioned beiween the c£;ii:3f£.ah;'€s

in equal pr0p:’ti«;)n. 75% of which is .

deposiied in {he respective acc01,mt.s permitiihg :6

draw iilterest: periodicaily. infVthie»_§31~1.haff1é;V{:d7

compensation with a(:c1″ued intéresf; Ads c51’rié:r€d

3:e1eased., Rest of the Cii1f€<;:ionA'»-i1{1 are–.

affirmed.

YKLV