High Court Karnataka High Court

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs M/S Vijayanand Road Lines Ltd on 19 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs M/S Vijayanand Road Lines Ltd on 19 November, 2008
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
MFA Nq..<15§:{9;:_203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAI§»§.:A'''< 4.? '-  ' A'
CIRCUIT BENCH AT pA§1ARwA:)'+ I   V V
DATED THIS THE 19¢: DAY <33   :_ 
BEFORE , . V V. V. _ ,   
THE HOBPBLE Dr. JfiSTI(iE=g§§ BHAi;fi'H_AVAT§§ALA
  

BETWEEN:

New India Assur-s£:1c:€:Vj.LC3otn:;§1am,r "Ltd;   = 
Rep. by the Assis£an't_M.anag¢f;    V
Mission Road; I  ~   :
Bangalore, ____   _ =:;,_ _ ..

Represeniing 1\¥tt=.:ssf.I11cii}%;1' _ n

Assu1'ance_ CQIfl§)afi_§€'"Ltd;  é   ' 

Hubli. A --    1 ...APPELLAN'F
(By Sri. Rdayafiraiiash, Adv'. ' 1'"-inrr

/ 5.3-.C.SeE:t1;aramat Rae Assts.,)

 Mf's.Vijaj?a;I1aiid*'Read1incs Ltd.,
Rapfby Maliaging Director,
Gi:'imja__'A;1:t1a=:x, I Fleur,

Cimuit Hmisc Road,

A   --..Smt_DPIath1m' a,

Major,

vlzajul,

Major,



M§'A No.4329";--2008

R-=2 is the wife 8:. R3 is the

SI o.Jai Singh Thakkar,

Both are 1'/a.No.301,

Kuber Apartments, M  b
Desaj Cross, " 

Club Road, Hubli.   .. 3 ..'.*R_E$i?eN

{By Sri.Di31esh M. Kulkarni, Adv. ro:5e,:_%R)  =  

This MFA is filed u] 8.173(1) of Act  fhevgludgment
&. Award passed. by the  ..Civi}«.Ui1dge (Sr. D11) &'*fi.ci'dI. MACT,
Hubzi dt.14.1.2008 in we N<o_.fi60f_2(}{)5."  _

This. MFA coming on  adsfeisibsidiigv ' gay, the Court
delivered the fol1owilng;    * _  '  '

H   

The dofggpanyj Respondent No.2 in

MVC No. of Civi} Judge {Senior
[“)_is.fision),_,l at :before this Court under Section 1273(1)
j;,§§VmrV;’§?ci§i§:3,aVs_ Act, 1988, contending that the Tribuna} has

awaxffi-ecvi”.e;§ofi$ii;aptV.T.@mpensafion in favour of Respondents 2 and

V3, tlie c2mf’m* um.

Véith the ccsnsent of the learned counsels for the parties,

A’ ‘ agents for final disposal.

.4 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Jaisingh

.V..uTha1<kar who was travelling in the bus of Respondent No.1, met

\/

MFA No.4329:) 12903

with an accident and the Tribunal erred in fixing

deceased at Re.1,4{),0€}O/~ pa. It is submitted'.tha£.::jL1je'*T~EI'1:i}pu;§aiv.

could have fixed earnings of the deceaiéged fee

Tribunal has awarded Rs. :2, 13,329 1'- …~.;+….a.., sossef e¢pénci'afi¢y. _

4. On the other hand, ‘counse1._foi”. Eeepofidents 2

and 3, via, the e}a1’ma.nt$V$i1bmits”‘fhet:’ team is my meet in the
appeal. It is further subxxiifteti f;1g§g_ased was doing

business in transpgrfextion fdfiigeveffteas Rs.40,0{),O00/~

my annum th.e’*Tf*ri;ofl;;ei”;vas justified in fixing the

income of time / ~–.

5. :9-tthe o’ut.:set.”-it it.n.ust be mentioned that there is no

I-V€’:’.§.$:}.211te”?:ea.«t:)o%sit the age «c’f”tEV1e cieceaseé. The age of the deceased

and applied multiplier 13 While awarding

.’tevxv5:axds loss of dependency. Admittedly, the

..’_V’V._:’~’_{i’f%C§&SCd Jajeimgh Thakkar was doing business in transportation

” aiiessessee under the Income Tax Act. He has fiieé his

V” tax mmms from the year 2081~–02 till his death.

6. In Ground No.8, it is contended that the age of the

deceased was 48. Learned eozmsel for the appellant has net raiseci

MFA No.«f1;3:2§’]«?O08

his iittle finger in his arguments as to the age

determined by the Txtibunal.

‘7. The deceased was in prinA1’c_ ‘age 0:?

energetic person. He was doing buéizt.c:S:s;v’: Izds filed
rcmjrris along with profit andlgzss business.
No doubt: the Tribunal flit? deceased at
Rs.1,4(},0OO/– p.a.?.. house property
and capital gaizgisi v§f:%_od1;i…havc deducted income
from house cap.4§;;a.iv’g$:iti;sr;”1v5I%%1iIc fixing earnings of the
dcceased. the ends of justice to fix
canzings of thé’d.dcx:eaV;é.cdV’f-gt v:§S.41O,0O0/- per month ad deduct
1:_l_I.3″1 of, expenses of the deceased and

dWa1d¢d.,c%o.*3£)i?;1.3{;iti0_n towards 1033 of dependency. Thus, the loss

of to Rs.6,666/» per msnth. Applying

‘.vv1:fV1i.ilt:ipIi:’:f”l3,'(§d37,..R§s.25,0O0/– towarcls fimerai expenses, Rs.i30,000/- towards

of cxpetancy of life, Rs.20,{)0O/~ towaxtis loss of love and

‘éfiecfion and Rs.10,€){)O/~ tewaxds loss of consortium. The

MFA No.4329.,’_ 2088

compensation awardeci towards other heads except: of

dependency do not call for intcrfemnce. Thus, the-‘.4§::ia1’Vm«T.:§;a:.:;’i$’s

entitled for compensation in all amou1}.ting”to. .Rs.–j,

8. In the result, the appealgig paftiy “aDowcVr§§3 .fi;éi* *’

Respondents 1 and 2, viz., the ai’e_ 1;-:V:V>r tom}
compensation of Rs.11,3%¥;896i_fA;W_ta$é__ sum of
Rs. 13,00,009/~ awarded by with costs and

interest as awaxdegi b§g _’i:h€ the Juégment

and Awaxd pf {he ‘g§c>difié:£_i;””

The ap’f)r:_1}’iant/’ has deposited a sum of

Rs.25,00Qf 4 _ .tO¥i”‘V’c1I(§.S-J “é§tat;L1to;1y deposit and another sum of

Té¢3&_.per conditional stay order. The amounts

V Ezwaxti.

shéii} 55- Ito the Tlibunai for disbursement as $1″ the

Sd/-_
Iudge