1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26" DAY OF AUGUST 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s. ABDUL NAZEER T; "
MISCELLANEOUS FIRSTAPPEAE.xv0;3.sm3bjérzmgf' V
Between:
1 Sharmeela Banu,
W/0 late Afsar Pasha,
Aged about 40 years.
2 Fareena Banu,
D/0 late Afsar Pasha,
Aged about years.
3 Satldick ' -
S/0 late Afsa1'-Pas}'1;'a,_ ' ~.. _'
Aged ab-gut 2V0 = A'
,,A§j:l'l'vare r/a Pexlsiefi Mtlhalla
" vfixterlsion, &HassaI1"-573 201. . . .. Appellants.
V}-VBy.VSfi ~13, Adv.)
And; = '
_ I "'C.B.v--._'£Ol:e'Sl1,
S/0 Beregowda,
A , lMajOI', r/0 Chikkakadallur,
" Dudda Hobli, Hassan "faluk.
2 The Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Co. I.,td.,
Coffee Krupa Building,
MG. Road, Madikeri,
Coorg District. if
(By Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv. for R2
R1 served) '
This Miscellaneous Fir_st=-Appeal filed, under Sec.l73( 1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988', ' ,agains.t i_heV"}udgnient and award
dated 17.11.2008 in MVC No.69L'200_5 on the wees the Frincipal
Civil Ridge (Sr.Dn._):V" and §Additi«onal '««.lV.£.otoi «Accident Claims
Tribunal, Hassan,e'tc. }j,-- V . Lv
This _..Appeal coming on for Final
Hearing thisday, the Couift.d§l.iyered the following:
ZUDGMENT
A "iT.his..,"app'ea1 is 'directed against the judgment and award in
:§»iV(:,_e.1$:o.6j9»i,/zoos:hated 17.11.2008 on the file of the ?rincipal
Civililudge.-{Sr;l3n.) and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
" The 'appellants were the claimants before the Tribunal and
the respondents were the owner and the insurer of the offending
ll
vehicle. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident
the liability of the second respondent — Insurance Compan’y’*toVVpa_jy5 A4
compensation. The appellants have filed this
enhancement of compensation. A.
2. lhave heard the learned Counsel for the parties. * . «. ‘
3. Leamed Counsel for.__the appell.ants”*wouldcontend that
Afsar Pasha, the husband o”fa the and father of
claimant Nos.2 and ‘lvdied inga motor vehicle. accjident occurred on
I3.6.2005’»__at, _ 3was working as a goods
Autorickshaufirlrivevr.xfleaakyas jgrihing Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per
_month, at the time of death. The Tribunal has erroneously taken
inconieiiat.Rsi3;0_00/~ per month. He was aged about 38 years at
the’–tirne’ accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have
[applied l5″‘v.rnul’tiplier for the purpose of assessment of loss of
dependency’. Learned Counsel for the appellants has taken me
the evidence of the parties, the documents produced by the
Km
deceased should be deducted towards his personal expenses. If that
is so, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/– towards
loss of dependency. It is also just and proper award an ,,
……….-.–__.2…….–………..__
sum of Rs.35 000/~ under other conventional heads.””‘.’1:fhujSs’»: H
claimants are entitled for a total compensationi
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of.Rs.3,§l’i,D:U0/– has to ”
deducted from the aforesaid and” of
compensation payable to flie””c.1aima.n’t_ The said
sum of Rs.l,34,000/– shall carryV’intere_st at annum.
7.:’1n the succeeds and it is accordingly
allowed in p’ar_t.llTvhe” secondyirespondent — Insurance company is
‘directed. to ‘deposit Rs.1,34,000/– with interest at 6% per
ann11mV1’ro_m.ythei “date of the application till the date of deposit in
addition to been awarded by the Tribunal within a period
[of eight xirorn the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
A fTribu’iial is directed to disburse the entire amount in favour of the
it
first ciajmant, who is none other than the mother of ciaimant
and 3. N0 costs.
BMM/–