-1...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 3" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMORAflmfiA$AIiI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.14215 ON 20fi7I"
BETWEEN
NORTH EAST KARNATAKA
ROAD TRANSPORT cORpORAwION_
GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA},
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER; _ --t »
REP.BY ITS CHIEF LAN OEFicERL»'A, . *~ APPELLANT
(BY SMT.SANGEETHA BfiADRAsHfiTry{zgON;}
AND
1. SHIVAPBAIVWJI,
S/0VMALLA¥YA3iV
AGEDQAIVXEABS,"
2..{SvGAMA"~ A V
*.'wiO SHIVAPPAL"
A*., AGED 35 YEARS,
I"&'iONAGAMMA:O)O SHIVAPPA
,3 AGED 10 YEARS,
"=MINOR"REP. BY
GUARDIAN FATHER.SHIVAPPA,
VIRALL ARE R/O.KOMALADODDI VILLAGE,
VDEVADURGA TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT.
"'.. i HANUMANTHAPPA
DRIVER, MAJOR
R/O ALARD, GULBARGA . . RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.R.MATH, ADV. FOR R1–3)
‘
-2-
MFA Is FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.3.2007 PASSED IN
MVC No.84/2007 ON THE TILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT~III AND MACT, RAICHUR,
AWARDING A COMPENSAIION OF RS 3,29,4oo/– WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT. vt*
THIS MA COMING on FOR HEARING THIS Oat} $HEx
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
£E2§EEE.s
This appeal is directedigagainsti’eethe’-jiidgznesntai
and award dated 31.8.»2G._Q7
passed by the MACT at Raichur’. _ g_ g
2 . Learned ~..§:oun’sel’ for the” appellant
firstly contends that.i_’Athe’E’ vcommitted an
erroriin. on the appellant.
It is heldilthat contributory negligence.
The4.{“i’ribuna”l~ appreciation of the oral and
evidence noticed the fact that the
result of composite negligence
of”‘4.the__v’dri~yer of the lorry and the driver of the
bus. “By: following the law laid down by this Court
OpIn_ILR 2004 KAR 109, the Tribunal refrained from
apportioning the compensation in the absence of
the driver and owner of the lorry in question.
This finding of the Tribunal is in accordance
with the law declared by this Court.
-3-
3. Secondly, it is contended that the
Tribunal comitted a mistake in taking the income
of the deceased at Rs.l20/– per day. The evidence
on record discloses that the deceased was”ficrking
as a Mesthri (Supervisor). This Court” and “the ‘
Apex Court consistently held that s cocliehearnsux
a minimum of Rs.100/~ per day, In that euentefithe
deceased. Mesthri’s (Supervisor)» income fiwasm more–.”
than Rs.100/m per day. In the circumstances, the
finding of the Tribfinal that vthe_ deceased was
earning Rs.12Q/w per day is just and proper. The
Tribunal by relieving £he”ia&*1eid down by the
Apex ceurt.ih the eeee er SARLA VERMA (sum) AND
OTHERS *vs;V ‘DE£HI»d*¢RANsPoRs CORPORATION AND
ANo:HER.repee;ed in (2009) 6 sec 121 applied the
fiproperrimaltiplier and proper deduction. The
A”compensatiofi;Vawarded by the Tribunal is in
accordance mith law and the same do not call for
V”interference.
Vh”hereby dismissed.
“AFor the reasons stated above, the appeal is