{-4
IN THE HIGH coum or KARHATAKQ, Q A' '
DATED Tms THE 3" rmrczas-f
"HE }"a"""'BLE HR -.1"-E4'-'3-'v'.i}'IG.'§'. R.-'£'e-4'; E'v.""='».Vl"1'._'sa:.-u="""'V""-ua:""*l'a'3'."'
LEEM
N H MANJUNA'i'HA'@ fI"E}iANJAE?'.§}\
S{Q%_H()}R.£KERAPPA 'V, A-
A§}EI3..ABO.7'.U'l' 3j:I.,jIRs, H .
.. N 1V1" .
A Di«::.;.'»-i_ H fvii\I\iJfiI~i:'\"'i'i-ifs @ H mm ' 1'-"'i\
Aeaomsrgur '1-MR':-3;
» SINCE MiNO_R'REP..~= %
BY APPELLANT, 1 FATHER
HoRAKE..APr~A
, S10 ONAKE RANGAPPA @
- ' -- - o.-mica
Irr I {r«-tI'\I' rr1 I1
~ 'J I"§!\IJ|J.l'\I'.f\
" ,_'VR.A'NxGA.PPA AGED ABOUT 66 YRS,
' éiIIii2AMMA
'mo HORAKERAPPA
}_AGED ABOUT 57 YRS,
" ; ALL LARE RJAT MADEDANAHQSUR \!!L-L.-A.GE-,
' HOLALKERE TQ., CHITRADURGA DlST.,
'I"|I"rl':I(\I'.\'h!rI'\'l v
FKEJDEJIV I 1: I
IA?!'
1') IIATJI trnui
IV] fll. IVIHIKU I I1!
NAGAR, CI-HTRADURGA TOWN,
.. . A'F'P"'L1;flI¥i"'l'. '
(By Sri : B M SIDDAPPA 3.-. KOTRABASAPPA H, ADV ) fifk
f"
4-:
Is)
1 MOHAMMED F'ARiJAN .-- ~ -- 1. V
9.10 MOHAMMED KALlNDJAR'SAB'..A .
AGED ABOUT 43 YRS, E .1 --
OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING,
NO.KA-16/1241, R/.A'F..__NEARABU'S
S'{'Al'1-EL', HOSADURG&--.~.,_ V
THE DI'\r'iSix'}i'~ir"aL rv1AVEAGEE X. '
THE UNITED 'INDIA 1:NsI_IRAEc;E.c0 .L'I'D.,
M.M.K. COMPLEX AKEEMAHAEEWV
ROAD ,DAVANAGER_E.._ E ' "
id)
V" 2 RESPONDENTS
(By S11; «’L”‘S_(f§!:@fIKl{‘1″§I~!Al3:OUi)ff%’}%. Afiv FOR R1 )
{BY SR}: B-CSEETHAEE. :~.+I.;–~…ts=..-s;-.2-,”.n.:.”.r FOR R2}
I .l’|l’vI\
3?’.-‘_L”f$i)’ ‘u’iS 17cm, 0;? My’ Am r’sGi’sIi’-E.-‘3″I’
THE –JUDG~EviEN’!’_ AND E AWARD DATED:1-1/06/2005
PASSED IN EMvC~.N0,EE’3.o2/2004 ON THE FTLE OF’ THE ii
ADDL.”g CIVIL ‘UUDG-E (_SR.DN_) an ADDL. MACI’,
CH_1TRAI}URGA; PA-._ ‘LY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
!¥iQREA.EoMPENEAT1oN 8; SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
-‘:C0MPENASATl’ON–;——« =
‘j APPEAL, comma on FOR ADMISSION. THIS
TEE E.-:’s’UR1’ ‘L”:ELi’v’E’RED THE Fmaowirea:
:.ULD_.fi_M_E_fl.I
This appeal though listaed for admission, with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is finally
heaxtl and disposed off by this judgment. I ‘.4
U ‘\
C»)
2. she defindrruts “f the dec-case.-i, r’45!¢=.1’V1’v*~.I_=-1f-i..::V=5 “i 1
MVC 302} 2004 on the fiie of the 1: * “V”‘j§;’f:{,:”‘A3″”$;i1’_,}>
and Motor Accident Claims mb1.na1,’¢11;m;.amga, £91! .51;-mt ~
MACI’, aggrieved by the.C9′??n'”{$§}~xr-.J11clg’+ii31?£<_£;11d'i';Kv.-gfiily
dated 14th .Ju11c,2OO5 i11§'!i57]"S20('A§4'hVén<.;"i':§bdt1ch, havfie
prefelrcd this appeal: pf
3. E111′ on 21.12.2003 a
1-d-‘ a-9;, c-‘gamma; of the 1st
and ..a-.u$*’..er-in-
4 succumbed to fauau iiIl:’lii’it’:’3
laadillgddta Of petition nulnbcmd as
‘fora lakh, as compensation, which when
d dlpun, the MAC31’ recorded a finding attributing
»”i=1dc:tioi1*a;::V”I:)j_ld5’1V1cgligence to the driver of the offending motor
insured by 2″‘ Icspondent. Undoubtedly, the lat
Ad I appdflmlt 3. cgglie by avocation lost his wife, who contributed
-1* iiii.’.””fii6 far the family -..1.1._isL1’11g Bf their
– 1 1 1 ,, _,_ °
nunor uaugntcr an 1 m “-‘””nu.u-s1i–;a'”s. 11.’ the absenm cf
evidence to estabii.-911 the avocation of ihe deceased ad a 1’rri’us'”
M
C/\
“‘”dc-T an’! her inwme, the M.A.!J.” .mkL-ned R$¢5G«,Ié—ne:i.day
an I r: L___
as the wage, deducted 1; a— mwends
applied multiplier ‘I6′ as appiie_ab1e.. ”
decreased. to award Rs. l,92,\()00’/”–._V_’ fo1* lose
to which was added for Hobsequiee
oelelnony; Rs.3000[-
towards loss of love Rs.3000/- for loss
to estate. gotmgiiag to R3.2;o8,do0;V.+ interest at 6% pain.
From the of “nae oolnpensation, by the
forthe appellan” ts while assamn”‘ g
gooxzecmeesvoffhe quantum of compensation awarded by
V t_11e”v..4]:§}i}\.V”C5t:”c~ontends that the MACT seriously erred in law
.’ A i taking the income of the deceased at R350]-
According to the learned counsel, the MACT
At ‘t t”.::on1V*tJ1etely failed to take into account the money value of
the se:-.ri-see 1..n….red by the deceased as a wife to her
hiisbnnfi. as flie ‘”other of a miner $13313. n….m.’|.
111,
::n
I’D
daughter-in-law of the house. Learred oo’u1°s””}
’12
Sa-
% s:
C
/
i;’;*z4J
under the wnsenfin 91 P s:
5. Per confia, }i’:iiI’i’i6’d munsel , Wrncie.-.nTt””.._
seeks to sustain the d’udg’.ni’ent_ .. a_’v’v’s.:”d V’ “sh.
being well merited, f11lly’.’_jusIified’o– andV9..’/gitiif it for
interference.
6. Having counsel for the
appellants” the_cn1y:=ques-tiontoiddecision making, is whether
the :-:._’_’ hte:2gs;.’2.zss,ooo;- awatded under
vaiiit-351%; h~}{‘L.e con_d_ Iegardcd as just
and..Ieasonahie~ ‘v’v’ithir. the mt.-3mp1a*.i…1 -f
the ” A
it ” 1 fact that the deceased was a house lady and
i’ . H years on the date of the accident and death is
notjnvcontmversy. Although a claim was asserted that the
it used to earn Rs.3000/- per month as a mill:
it ..,n…..r, but direct evidence is not forthcoming in support of
the plea. This by 13%!” in “W cannot cloud the
.–.-.4
0’1
mind of the court in assessing the vahiie of
Iendeied by the deceased, housemlady, ‘£2.
minor child and the in laws. The ii
minor girl aged 10 years ‘V the
of untimely demise of the wotildioiiidogubtedly be
arrested and rendered by the
deceased should besssessed the money and
I:
an 1\rinf'” r~r§’
..,.}I.r’.1-,.-…..£__: .,.im,,V.-…_ ….. _
A he am-_:s.ed., 1
.4′:’¢’ii,’l§(‘5ii”l iii’ the Supreme Cour’:
assessed the the sewice of a house wife as
Rs._36,0GB/_¥ per yea”:
i _ ihct that the 1st claimant. claims to be a
avocation and belongs to a poor family.
tindogxbtedly, being elder member of the family undertakes
some won. .0 es-.13 w…g.s t. -..upp1.m..I-.t t..- -1′-I…….m1’1y L… .,m .1
l”l’l’l. …….I.’……. 1…… ..I………… ….-‘I ‘l-…-……l..-…. .-.1-..-..-.I.-I nu…-‘I I-“I-.5. .–..-sn-. –
I uclclulc, ‘K2111: l..lUL.’C«l::l.’.iCl.l uuvnig uuuxucx L11 uucx’-6&5′:
iesponsfbility of upisringing the minor child it. eamiot be
said that the claim of the appellants that the deceased was
.he..0
UK
-4
* T ‘ ” ‘””” “‘ Rs.3u'”w”‘;= MP3′ meet}: tegbe E’-:ia.gn?e,a3″;{.
However, giving room for some exaggeiaiioiii
the fact. that the deceased aalnativefiv of . l’
Village, I-lolalkeie talukg
incredible to reckon udayf of the
deceased. After Personal
expenses of tile dependency per
month is 30 years and
‘I-}1n1~nFn-I1.’
:1
I.-.I..l\rA vnva V-J’
ag:1;:3.opiiate”~a.iz11 *:_I.g I1 to be
depéhdeney V’ ”
I ‘iii–agieement with the learned counsel for the
vthat the compensation awarded under
ii A heads are also on the lower side. It is trite that
the to be awarded under conventional heads
A ‘l”;i1’ust1eflect time, place. vicissitude, influences, illflationary
L1 an I f 1 ._.s ffiiidividual
V.-v-.–.—–.-.——- —
Ill Nlnh-I .u Viug a”‘ “4”” ‘”°”ger winfinwfion
under the conventional heads, a Division Roch of Elillis
U \
CID
)’tJ’hII
\.r\.I
§:.
reported in 2004(1) KCQR u)’3)e’n t
to award adequate
heads. In that case too, faets a
house-lady aged left behind
flour minor children, Rs.3000I –
as the ‘–:ioee__:.f’ot’ dependency, and
1-33 of oonsortium, lavas
It}… In case, the deceased left behind one
dau}ghter–. «and therefore income is reckoned as
V month. The award of oonlpensation for loss
” . h ‘of deserves enhancement from Rs.5000/- to
$20,060/-; loss offilial love and afiecfion from R.-3.3000]-
AA “to t§s.15,000]- and loss to estate from Rs.3000/- ho
Rgzoemmi-. .
__ we
” ‘ ‘U’\
dilected to deposit
In the result, this appeal is allowed in
substitution of the 1: 04
oolnpensation is awarded as follow;’: ‘ 5,30″ ~
1. Loss ofdepeac1e,1cy_’v:’~~..%J 0
2. Loss of cozisqlfiumm ” f?Ei}’ .000
3. Loss offifialifivé a:1a10aH¢gfi-03%” ‘_V__Rs. 15.0001-
4. Tqwa13i’_s.:. t1*énspoj:tafi;iii7;=i’§1§é:i body
obsaeq’i_.iies_4. ‘ Rs. 5,{)”‘uG;’-
….._.__..__…__….-………..-.
_’aimum fimn the date of petition
4′-all thé–‘r1at£ 0! }v3{£’||1-inrxi-in11 119 inglirnhnp 1 ‘run It 1-.
I-,!c’»IIulu\-F-I-II I .I I.AJ.$dI.l.J. an-I
L1.
11 amt-‘uu”‘t w”i’u1m”‘” one
-.t_vIw3;::th_ 1’ij0HI__ the date of mcweipt of a copy of this
2 H the: money already deposited. to be made
“.0VEI”–01:20 flié appellants.
5 csg