IN THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 5?" {DAY OF JUNE 2008
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRSJUSTECE MANJULA T.
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.N.:KESHAyANARA$Aj5sA T T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL N%§.4238!'2Q§)@(Mv)'~ _ , , T
cxw.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A§fPE,_AL
nu MFA fig 4238 or 2%': t
ggmggu : T
1
sm T Mummvasama T -
36 YEARS .' '. 2 1'. : A
WIO 1.:-J'\1"£-.jG 'i*éARA¥fftNNA_ FREDDY'
RIO cio sazgsuvas REr::.nY."KMF
NoT1T2q,':>EvAs:.AcHjExANAH:»a;LI,
m POST,'.;3G F:OAD,'~$TM LAYOUT,
BANGALoREj$zs H
YASHASWIW R if,
V --1.3YEAR.S. 'MINOR
. we LATE GNARATYANNA REDDY
'RIO czo SRTNIVAS REDDY, KMF
NO .1 2.0; "DEVARACI-IEKANAHALLI.
T" "V as ROAD, BTM LAYOUT.
%«eANc5AL0RE--76
V REPTBTY THEIR MOTHER
N3TuRAL GUARDTAN MUNITAYAMMA
THITZJASWINI
" T 6 YEARS, MINOR
V' * D10 LATE G NARAYANNA REDDY
RIO CID SRINIVAS REDDY, KMF
N0 120, DEVARACHEKANAHALLL
HM POST. BG ROAD. BTM LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-76
REP BY THEIR MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN MUNITAYAMMA
k A - _ jay Sri.M sownaswu, ADV. FOR R1
4 MOTAMMA
WIO LATE GURAPPA REDDY
64 YEARS
MOTHER OF LATE G NARAYANNA REDDY
RIO CID SRNIVAS REDDY, KMF
NO 120. DEVARACHEKANAHALLL
IIM POST. BG ROAD. BTM LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-76 "
(By Sri.V S PRASAD. ADV.)
1 ORiENTAL INSURANCE co _
D:vIs:oNAL omce' " T %
PAVITHRA SOUTH AVENUE ;
3"" FLOOR 9?'? MAIN RQAD'
ll! BLOCK; .3A1Y_ANA€3AR.'~"' A
BANGAL(}REéV_1__1'. ~ M V
REP BY ITS £)!Vi$%0N--£d,. MANAGER
INSLQRER 't':F«:.N}AX1_,_CAB N91-950
2 cm $F?.INViA-$__REDD_Y'- 4'
B'{.AG.E~
SIO MUNISWAMY' REED'!
RIO NC-11912, 0mm, 1 15
CHi_NNAY¥ANA :=w..AvA_
_~ CROSS'."'J\!..lL$ON GARDEN.
* % k kosmwea es-5 MAXI CAB NO KA-11-950
3 X % -.3 s 'SHANMUGA
" SIC) MUNISWAMY REDDY
R!_O1NO19i2 OLD NO 115
* s CHINNAYYANA PALAYA
, 'STH CROSS. WILSON GARDEN.
' ' "BANGN..ORE~3O
DRIVER OF MAXI CA8 KA-11-850
RESPONDENTS
” R2 8: 3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
/
//X
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FlLED_.._L_J!S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 14.2.2003 PASSED IN MVC
ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDLJUDGE, MEMBER.~~~~MACTa7, ”
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES. BANGALORE, (SCCW7). PAR’TLY’»
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITIGQ FOR COMPEN$A.TiO’N.Au’iD .
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPE!§l$A1_’IoN_.,’ ” A 1- 3
EEBMEEH
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE. co;.A’m ~
REGD omce AT ASAF A!JfROAD., A A D
NEW neuaa & BANGALORE Aamsoma. CJFji’~.!CE_
AT LEO snow-ms A
RESlDENCYROA!.’J”€3ROS»3.””*..’ V
BANGALORE-1;
Rravns RE(;..!CBNAi;’hfiANAGE?.R.
(By Sri.,.PA–SOWRI ‘A A
1 SMTT M1JNlTHAYAMMA
V Huuou’; FEMALEADULT.
, wio G NAFEAYANA REDDY.
* R10 sasmvnsaaenov KMF.
R. I’ 510.120;-DEVARACHIKANAT-IALLI.
V – TT:1anTP0aI.As G ROAD,
– A. BTMLAYOUT,
A BANGALORE-76.
2 ..YiAST-VIASWINT
T T rm (3 NARAYANA REDDY
~ HINDU, FEMALE.
Mama, RIBY THEIR MOTHER
RESPONDENT NOS} AS
NATURAL GUARDIAN & NEXT FRIEND.
RIO SRINIVASA REDDY KMF,
NOJ20. DEVARACHIKANAHALLI,
IIM POST, B G ROAD.
BTM LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-76.
J_LLD_§_M_E_N1
As bofiw these appeais arise out of the same
award passed by me MACT. eamaore cityfagg
No.1146I1999. they were heard togeme; gee are oeingeepoesd of ‘ x k
by this common judgment.
2. MFA No.4238I2003 is the so we
No.1146I19m seeking enij4a:1oemei?i:t’V’oVf:. “being dis»
satisfied with the quentufi: $ by the
MFA féepondont No.1 in the claim
petition co. Lu, questioning the legality
and of award passed by the Tribunal
both on negligence and on the quantum of
. V. oonipehéetéofi A
course of the judgment, the parties will be
referred feference to their ranking in me Courts below.
4.’*–.V’:t’.he”petitioner Nos.1 to 4 claiming he be me wife, two
* fneinq; daughters and mothew of one G.Narayana Roddy, filed claim
before the Tribunal in we No.114s1199o seeking
= eompensafion for the death of the said Gflarayane Roddy, who
died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 2.3.1999 at about
5.45 PM.
5. The brief averments made in the oiaim petition afireetiieig
While the said G.Natayana Roddy was
Motorcycle Raidoot bearing No.CAC «ms aiong .hi;sf
venkateeh Roddy on Varthur Tank Randi. fa 7
No.KA-11-950 driven by the 3″‘ respondentoeme V ,
direction’ and dashed against me Rio said
Narayana Raddy died at giyiiiion rideru’GV.iIenkatesh
Raddy died late in the mnipai no»spna. one accident was
due to nis;h”ane”ii9gsi§g’n: eiiying eiiinéinaxi Cab by its driver i.e 3″‘
The the owner. The 1″ nespondent
is the insurer”of the Therefore, responclens 1 to 3
v _areengi seVéi’a!!y.!iabie to compensate the petitioners for flue
Narayana Roddy. That the -deceased was the
of the family and ail the petitioners were
depeiaciiiig onfine earnings of the deceased. That the deemed
about 35 ywrs and he was working as an Electric’ ian
Ciass-i license contractor and from me said work he was
Vi ” “eeming Rs.6.000f– per month as saiary. in addition to Rs.50I- per
day towards food and conveyance. FI.Iffi’I9l’ the decemod was also
doing milk procurement between 4.00 to 6.00 AM. and from {his
business he was earning a minimum of Rs.5.000I– per month.___ in
addition to this. the deceased was doing ooooonai agm:uiroroiTeore,
From this he used to get Rs.20.0G0l- per crop and to
two crops per year. Thus, the avetegemcome’ it”
from all the sources was Rs.15.000l- and “to
entire income to the welfare andbenefit oftho eii ‘
these contentions. the petitioners: for of
Rs.25,00,000I- under vafloeueiheaaiie. V ~ o . f i
6. inspite of service of Noo.2 and 3
remained absent end eicparte. The
V.:’.’eredu:t>Vefore the Tribunal through his
tamed couinseli and claim petition. in its objection.
the respondent “No.5! oi! the petition evermente end
V. that ti1e”eocis.te’nt in queetion was not on account of rash
odd negiigentdriving of the Maxi Cab by respondent No.3. But on
other was due to the negligence of the deceased
himooai gnome the Motorcycle. it also denied the allegations
it it ‘ ¥reg;er4din:g”‘ti1e various avocations said to have been pursued by the
and me income. it was further contended diet the
it “compensation ciaimed was highly excessive and exorbitant.
However. respondent No.1 admitted the issuance of the Policy and
‘rm vaiidity as on the date of the accident but contended that its
8
Iiabitity is subject to the terms and condihns of die Policy and the
provisions of the Motor Vehictm Act.
7. During trial. the petitioners examined
marked Exs.P.1 to 5°29. On behatf of the earn
evidence was let in. However. copy of
to be marked as Ex.D.1.
8. After hearing both sidV.t;…tt:e the
Trtbunat by his judgment gunder appee!..he!d thet was
due to rash and negligent” of by its driver-
” of the evidence placed on
record. the total income of the deceased at
Rs.7,5oo:. pa;-monmteandeafiar deducting 113*” towards his personal
” duentiited toss of dependency at Rs.5,000i~ pm. By
appiying-die of 1 1, me Tribunal quanfified the total loss of
de;§eadeh¢yta;t32s.e.eo,oooI». To this. ttm Tribunal added anovner
sumééof Re.3t),000I- under conventional heads and awarded total
‘u..j*’V.oons::.eneetion of Rs.6.90.000I-. The Tribunal directed the
— No.1 to pay the enfire compensation amount together
T interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition tit! due date of
payment. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded. petitioners 1 to 4 as stated wrlier have filed MFA
No.4238I2003, while the Insurance Company questioning the
findings ofthe Tribunal has filed MFA No.4349f2003. ‘
9. We have heard the learned couneel eppeefrine”*on..hot§a” –.
sides.
1d. Learned counsel appeerinig for to 4
eontended that though the ‘e.yidenoe_ on
record indicates that the the Tribunal
has erroneously.telrer; deceased only at
Rs.7,500I-». Tribunal for the purpose
of finding erroneously taken the
averegeiage his mower. In fiwis regard. he
contended t.’1eVVV’Tritbnnelrought to have taken the age of the
_ A’ only for”ihe…purpose of finding out the proper multiplier,
estite in this case has left behind his wife and minor
liohiylidren He further contended that having
V dd . regard to’: number of dependents only 114″ of his monthly
W H ” ehould have been deducted for his personal expenses and
is-alanoe 314″‘ should have been considered as his contribution to
i family and based on this the “Tribunal ought to have quantified
it the loss of dependency. He further contended mat the amounts
awarded under the conventional heads are on the lower side and
they need to be enhanced. He also contended that the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribune! at 6% is on the
needs to be enhanced to 9%.
11. On the other hand, teamed counee!-.,.a;;peeringA –«..
respondent No.1-Insurance Company
the Tribunal regarding actionabie negtigeriee is _erron’eou$*3 and
having regard to the oral and evidence, the ‘Tribune! V
ought to have held that fl’:’e..aocider{t eoiely due”to”negiigence
of the deceased himsetf in ttiei”motoro3icte} Alternatively, he
contended that, on record, the
that there was contributory
neg!igenzceVV’oriVthe_oert.:’o¥~”dmeased and such contributory
negiigence ough_t’to.h.ave’~be’e7n quantified for the purpose of smling
” .oornpeneafion’;” He further contended that the evidence
by regarding the income of the deceased are
u”nre”iiab|e’ same is not convincing and wceptable. He
contended that the Tribunal had no basis for fixing the monthly
at the deceased at Rs.7,50OI-. He contended that the
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
” u V ‘conventional heads are excessive.
12. In the light of the above. the points mat arise fe.>.r___ our
consideration are;
0 Whether the Tribunal was justified in
accident was sorely due to ‘ K V’
of the driver of the Maxi Céb respondent’; ._ if’
ii) mmether the quant\_jm.. of”
requires to enhanqaid-arr T_ _ E
13. fl_fig,__(j)_; specific case
of the pefitioners whim riding
his nlotorcycié .4Vl__’i’fé2_6:’r_:aI
this. it is clear that the Maxi Cab prism-ng North
to South instead of has to the
extreme Western of tne…9aa.a.ls. side and dashed
against the Scum to North
keeping to his ‘side of the read. From
this is cert:-.gt the accident was solely
due to the the Maxi cab. Ex.P.7 is the
copy of tl1eVVV’charaeVfistteet_.i’ which shows mt after investigation.
.Poiie*;~iiiiIeaftst¢ cha’rge…_eheet against the driver of the Maxi Cab.
A”:__As;av;ainet4titis<…die.respondents have not let in any evidence. The
dritzgfof ud1e'."_ifAai-tivliilab was die best person to speak about the
V –V manner the accident occurred. For the reasons best
_ .. – .. to the respondent. the dtiver of the Maxi cab has not been
From the records it is also noticed diet no effort has
made by respondent No.1 to secure the presence of the
it ' " driver of the Maxi cab for giving evidence. In this View of the
matter, we are of die View that the Tribunal is justified in holding
that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
the Maxi Cab by its driver and there was no
contributory negiigenee on the part of fine deceased;
we answer point No.(i) in the effirniafive,
14. Pain; near)’ : As noticed aeeeie is ease
appeiianislciaimants that the “as an
Eiectrician in Progressive iEri’gineerin§r,”ry’¢es’-»e_iso doing. rniiik vending
business and was aiso on to mom the
deceased was Rs.50I- per day
as batta frornifie per month from
miik veneine fper month from agriculture.
Thus, ‘oleizoieswts-tote! monthly income of deceased
was and from met amount if 113″‘ is
dedijgcted. toveardsuhis eeeenei exeeesee, and by applying the
loss of dependency workout to
it is the grievance of the epeeliante that the
Tribune)» iaken the monthly income of the decemed at
f?s.7.50§i§’- from all sources and has applied multiplier of 11, by
taking the average age of the deceased and his mother and has
‘ Heeanuned the loss of dependency at Rs.6,60.000l-. Thus,
according to the appellants. this method adopted by the Tribunal is
erroneous and the compensation under this head is too low as such
it requires to be enhanced.
15. From para-8 of judgment under appeal, it is noiic_ec_i_ that
the Tribune! has taken the income of the deceased at
from all sources Le. Rs.4.000I- as salary
Eiectrician, Rs.2,000I- from milk verrdingéanci’ ”
agriculture. Thereafter by
expenses of the deceased and hyappiyirig ‘i31 ‘
me basis of the average age of and: has
quantified flue loss of A H
16. Let us now ihe case of the
appellants regardifiitne from each of the
i The wire or the
eiiasaioed as PW.1, in her orai evrde’ nce
has reiterated .fi’ret__!1″e’r husband was working as Electrician earning
‘ rrrorrtiiwapart from Rs.50I– per day as batta,
vending business and Rs.40.000l~ pa from
agricixiaxreri According to her. her husband used to pay her
“‘-..Rs.15,G9Q;i– to Rs.17,000I– per month for family expenses.
V’:1 fxcc:ording to her, after the death of her husband she ms soici away
V’ tire cows and for iooking after the agiicsittarai land, she has
i’ appointed one Bhadranna on payment of Rs.3.000I– per month,
who inturn gives her Rs.10.00QI– every year and Ragi also. PW.1,
the wife of the deceased in her evidence has stated that one
Mr.Nayak was paying her husband a salary of Rs.6,000i- and
Rs.50I- per day. In the cross-examination. it is elicited frernd’.i?:’\N_,_1
that her husband was neither a Diploma nor a
work as Electrician nor he has obtained any i
Government to work as Electrician.
studied up to ssLc. She has tire-.si.iggestion.i_that ‘sneiihssi
deposed falseiy to and arrest that onmayaki was pa;}’i=n§’ A
per month as salary apart .Rs.5(é)I’-§;”‘ is one
Ravindia Nayak. In his ofai that he is a
Ciass-I Electrical of a concern
by name stated that the
for 10 years prior
to his to execute electrical work like
power etc. According to him no
v _ Er;i3eliticaiiori«is_.required for working as Electrical supervisor
‘and Narayana Raddy was experienced in eiectrical
‘.ii1:$aé!iaaon’i.’is’ori€§”v.Aecording to him, the deceased worked under
or hirnuiiii. and of February 1999 and was paid salary of Rs.6,000I-
i A psr..rnonti’i and daily baits of Rs.5OI«- for conveyance. According to
concern has KST and CST numbers. He has stated that
i’éx.P.12 is the certificate issued by him in respect of deceased and
it bears his signature. in the cross-examination, it is eiicitaed from
PW.2 that he is not an income Tax assesses and he had employed
four persons to work in his concern. It is funhei eiiciied from/.__b|1im
that his monthly income is Rs.6.000I- to Rs.7.000l- deoeho*ihg,:on
me work he got and his monthly inoomo will
Rs.1o.ooo:– if he get maximum work. Aooohiihg A ‘
average monthiy income is Rs.6.000!– iio
from him that he is not maintaiiiiifigxeny”
employees and with regard to to:
towards their salary etc. i-ioiiiiios that he used io one
rewipts from his employees ‘giayments and that
more is no hqidio to him. the
deceased 20 Kms. away from the
place work’ that the deceased
Narayarie under him as Elwtrician on a
salary oi_as;e,ooo;..s poi in the reemmination. it is oiioiioci
V. _. fAroii-i:{hiii*i’.th’a1;’his inoome of Rs.6.000I- to Rs.7.€)O0l- was
his empioyees and oiher incidental expenses
.en;iVhisV_éai’ii~;i_2iii turnover is about Rs.3 iaichs and he eon also
produce all ihe reievant documents before the Court. He has also
hi l[j~ the KS’? and CST numbers. In the further examination he
admitted that he has not submitised mo poriiooiais of the
V’ “employees to the Labour Department. This is an the oral evidenoe
regarding the evocation of the deceased as Electrician. Now the
quesfion is whether this evidence is suffioient to accept the case of
the petitioner that the deceased was working as Electrician. As
already noticed above. PW.1 who is the wife of the deceased has
not disclosed the name of the concern in which her
stated to have been working as Electrician. Though _
that he is the Class»-l Electrical Contractor –« ..
under the name and style of Progressive
worthy of acceptance is produced establish the said
though has categorically stated has KS’!.’V_ V
and in the re-examination ‘has nurnc-ers’VVin Ex.P.12
which is suited to be the in respect of the
deceased Narayena numbers of the
concern. ereg’not’»meiiitioned:.;§ certificate Ex.P.12 and the
oral evidonrie ‘document is produced before the
Court to that he is a Class-l contractor
and ‘under hirn”‘ Vxclecieased was working as Electrician. As
are deceased had no speciai qualification to work
a:_s«._E_iectvricia:ri.’ i–io has studied only upto ssi.c. Though PW2
states fljrat riioiias maintained all use records to show that the
deoeasediwas working under him as Eiectrician, no each document
.prcduced before the Court. According to PW.1, her husband
. it was also doing milk-vending business apart from agriculture. If the
evidence of PW.1 that the deceased was carrying on milk vending
business and also agriculture. we wonder as to how he could have
19
had lime lao work as Electrician on regular basis. According to
F’W.2. the working hours of his concern was between 9.30 to 5.30
PM. As admitted by PW2, the deceased was swing amigo
Krns. away from the place of work. It is also ”
believe that to work as Eieclrician no special V
required. in me absence of any eocepfehle’
difficult to place reliance on the evidencek’ __ _zof
cemncam at Ex.P.12. Under tl:ee:e””circun1st=encee;_; no ” V
substance in the contention of_.iti1e.leemed for the
appellant-claimants that the ‘ing as Elwtrich n
under PW.2 and wee’gettin;fieelenr or nfs,e.ooo;;apan: from R550!-
Per lhat the Triburml without
properly evidence has come
to the wrong claimants have proved that the
V. We are at loss to know as
could mice Rs.4,000I- as salary from the work
lee the claimants contended that the deceased
V V . was”‘”earri-inTg”l’§s.6.000I- per month as salary and adduced oral
.Vicvidence””‘t§1rough PW.2 and produced documenmry evidence
to prove the said fact. Therefore. we are of the
.»considered opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the
‘V deceased was working es en Electrician and that he was getting a
; sum of Rs.4,000l- as salary from the said work is erroneous.
Therefore, we are not inclined to consider any income from the
alleged work as Electrician.
Re: lncgw fiom Milk veggjm: PW.1 in hef–‘..’¢:):l’3lv
has stated that her husband used to supply.milk.’_’to”the–dai’ry M’ ‘a
village from 5.30 to 6.30 AM and froi1t*tl1e’_’_’miiVk xieneiioe
he was earning a sum of Rs.5,0£lt)io..i3er moose.
examination, more is nothing her * in this
regard. one Narayanav been to subsmntiate
the contention of thevclaimsnts. to sell milk.
PWA has hehas been working as
Secretary in: at Jattagondanahalii and
he According to him, the
deceased to _:Lts.;”every day to the said Society. He
has fizrdier that the deceased used to come to the Society in
V’ . ttie’:e,;rioi:ning’i– was sending his servant in the evening
a. him. the deceased had four cows. He has
toes iiiai he joined the Society in 1997 and even before
iiieitilelicieoeaseo was selling milk to the society. He has further
A if that the Society used to make payments to the deceased in
it every fortnight and total amount approximately paid to the
it deceased by the Society was Rs.4,000I- per month. According to
him, the wife of the deceased sold away the cows after the death of
the deceased. According to him. Ex.P.13 is the passbook that was
issued by the Society to the dmased and entries therein are made
by him. He has further stated mat Exs.P.14 to P20″
coupons issued by the Society to the deceasw
regarding supply of milk. According to him. the l
Society by passing resolution aPl30irr_ted :h4ir’r:_ es
effect from 11.4.1997 and a oepy
marked as Ex.P.30. The paymorrfirogistor ror it
was also marked as jé has” cross»
examined by the teamed for No.1-Insurer.
There is nothing to disbelieve his
evidence. Secretary of the Co-
operative “_”His;evidenm that the deceasw
was ” has not been seriously
ohallengedV@–.._VThe PW2 in his regard is corroborated
byv_»»theV:_doeumeniery_____eyidence namely passbook Ex.P.13 and
o supgly eards .jEse.P.14 to P20. Ex.P.21 is the oorimmo issued by
tile-.iieteuiinery’lirlebamnent in favour of the dmeased for having
the Cattle Show held in Mudhsandre during the year
i. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence clearly establish
‘ deceased was carrying on milk vending business by raring
-milking cows and he was getting not less than Rs.4,000l- from sale
of milk. There are no reasons to reject this evidence. There is
nothing unnatural for a person residing in rural area to mate
22
multifarious activities to earn money for the maintenance of himself
and his family members. Therefore. we are of the considereidview
that the appellants have satisfactorily established that
was carrying on milk vending business. The Tribunal _
Rs.2.000I- as the income from the miltlyending Vii-tavingz
regard to the facts and circumstances
the evidence produced. we are of’._conside;ted~ it is just” V
and reasonable to take ineeme.”y_:ef”‘d1_e deceaseeifrom milk
vending business at Rs.lt.0l?0~’-l’ meeting all the
expenses incurred by him’in’th§s;bus5riess.V I l
= lt_is= in the evidence or PW.1
that pa from agricultural
lands. in’ the cress;je>:arr*.i:rfi’atien, only suggestion put to her was
that the deceased .v’vas”vnot””‘getting Rs.40,000I- p.a as agricultural
V’ . PW.3-V$”ha’dra’ Raddy has been examined to prove that
agriculturist. PW.3 in his oral evidence has
the deceased Narayana Roddy. According to
this he has been cultivafing the land of Narayana Reddy
it * iaseer the request of the wife at Narayana Reddy after his death.
has further stated that 4 acres of land stands in the name of
‘V V’ “Narayana Reddy and he did not know the survey numbers of land.
He has further stated that there is a bore-well in the land, mulberry
crop is grown in the land. According to him. he gets the work done
24
deoeased can be safely be taken at Rs.6,090I- per month from all
the source as discussed above.
17. The deceased has let: behind his wire egeeeeeeieeei
years two minor daughters aged 9 and 2 yearsfiandi K TV
about 60 years. From the evidence oni°reco.rd.’ivit .
deceased was an hardworker hdVi:i:’l’§V_muflAi:fafi0tz$VV Therev T’
is no indication in the evidence that~th’evdeoeased’viiasA apvsiipendtiirift.
Apart from maintaining to maintain his
wife. two minor édaiighteis’ ‘anii:: ” ‘Therefore, having
regard to we jare considered opinion
that to be deducted
towards his _ Thus, the monthly loss of
oontribuitiienjito the out at Rs.4.500I- and annual loss
weiicseni ei Ae noticed above. the Tribunal for finding
Viapiorepiiaie rnvuiiiplier has mken the average age of the
mother. in our considered view, this method
adopted Tribunal is erroneous. When the dmased has left
AA behind__his wife and two minor daughters apart from the mother, for
of finding out the appropriate multiplier to quantify the
loss of dependency. the age of the deceased alone is relevant.
Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the
multiplier of 11 by taking the average age of the deceased and his
mother. According to the PM report-Ex.P.5, the age of the
deceased was 37 years. The contentions of PM report haye not
been seriously challenged. Therefore. the age of the
can safely be taken as 37 years. The appropriate’
applicable to the age of the deeeasw is 15. Thue«ttie:~tet:el::iess u ..
dependency works out to Rs.8.10,000i;g’ pea izmiwe
appeliantsclaimants are entifledefor fliiearnount tine head’ -‘
‘loss of dependency’.
18. The Tribunal . .Rs.5,000I- towards
funeral expenses, gRs.10,€)0e!;_ “eetate, Rs.5.0001.
towards loss loss of filial
iove and awarded Rs.30.000,’.
under In opinion, the compensation
awardecivuncler “funeral expenses and less of
consortium is”onV_the.lowei’. and under each of these two heads,
game are ‘erfitied to Rs.’l0,000!~. The award of
1’Rti.ilfli,O39l4ltlfid:eft”i1e head loss of estate, Rs.’l0,000l– towards loss
of filial Ioxre ‘enjdatfecfion are just and proper and there is no scope
for enhancem” : ‘lent. Thus. the claimants are entitled. ‘ for total
V’ .eompensation of Rs.8.50,000I-. The Tribunal has granted lntermt
— on the compensation amount. This being a death case,
i are of the considered opinion mat the rate of interest awarded at
6% pa. is jut and proper and there is no scope for enhancing the
rate of interest.
26
19. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal filed by
the claimants in MFA No.4238l2OOC3 is allowed in part enheaeing
the compensation to Rs.8.50.000I- as against ti1e_:m’ew!éard__ji. at _
Rs.6.90,000l- by me Tribunal. The enhanced’:
Rs.1,60.000I- shalt any interest at 6% the deteief
tilithe dateofpayment. V 4_ _v u S
The respondent No.1-Orieittttii insufattee is
direcmd to deposit the interest
and costs within eight weeke of the copy of
this order. apportioned and
disbursed to proportion as directed by
the Tribuna|~,. it _ it
the ap4pee|Tfi!fedt::b3iJtite””irtsiirer in MFA No.4349l20OB is
dismissed V’ i 4′
Sfifwi
Ii.i.&§:§’é:;’§
gig-i:§fm
Iufiigyé
i mv*