High Court Karnataka High Court

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Bharathi W/O Narayan Arkasali on 23 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Bharathi W/O Narayan Arkasali on 23 April, 2009
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH coum" or KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23"" DAY 0:: APRILA.--'§;.r':6'(3':"§V--'   T.

BEFORE  

THE HON'BLE MR. zusnce  N:,'_"S§§TYANN{AY;5;'¥x'A""1.jé

sgmw

BANc;A.1.r.:3s§E -4 5.6%T]0.Q1'; ;

NEW INDIA ASS_U:§1Ah;i_CEV- QGMVPAHTY
LIMITED, SRINA1'H_'C{3AM?LEX,AT~..  " .
:1 FLOOR, N c M..H,uBLI,_  " 
REP BY TApTM:N:,;sTRATa:vE;QFFxr;ER,
AT a§5<sIQiHAL,CFF£_cE, UHIW 'BL'DG.,
ANNEX}.M'iS?SIG¥Slj-«RGATD,  A

...APPELI.ANT

(B_Y.TsaI.§;sHRIsHA:LA;VADV.)

    -- 

AG’E_D*ABOUT 3? YRS,

‘Aw/_c3.T. i\iARAYAN ARKASALI,

” .SL3RESH,

AGED AsouT 21 ms,
s/0 NARAYAN ARKASALI,

vz3AYA
AGED ABOUT 19 YRS,
s/0 NARAYAN ARKASALI,

4 . MAN] U NATHA,
AGED A3OUT 18 YRS,
S/0 NARAYAN ARKASALI,

S. SHALINK,
AGED ABOUT 13 YRS,
S/O NARAYAN ARKASALI, ‘

No.5 BEING A MINOR. & REP-.ABY._
R1 &ALL ARE R/AT A _
Bi-EADRAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: MUNDGGD,

I …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRLDINESH w;_s<u£_a<A:§r~::{, ~§<i;<s{'1,_
$RI.R.A.PL|ROH1'T',"Al3V ma R6) 'A

I_S-..'FI._i_.ED'–~U[SvEC 173 (1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST JUADGMEVNT AND AWARD DATEB: 31.7.2008
PASS,ED= INVM'VCi'-NVDT,1Tfi?'72OO7 ON THE f-"ILE OF THE ADDL.
MACT.',; VYELLAEUR;VUV.'i{,}AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.7,79;2'0D,f~ 'WITH .'I"_HTEREST @ 6% PA. FROM THE
DATE OF PE'._§'ITIVCT)N "FILL PAYMENT. '

E*'.THI'S.' MFACUMING on FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, "me

T jf€OUR'?"«.BE%LwEREo THE FOLLOWING:

.LLLQ§_M.E.fl.I

v–..ThisTinsurance company's appeai has come up today

TA for Cchsideration of meme for withdrawal cf amount:

T '..VVt:ie;3$esited by the insurance company. This matter is taken

up for finai hearing in the presence of both the Counsel fer

the parties with their consent.

“*1

2. The essential facts leading to this appeal are

that on 2s.os.2oo7 at about 7.00 pm, NarayanV:A’rl§’as’ali,

husband of first respondent and the father”-of .-eepoadentll
Nos.2 to S was walking on the sldelfof road;”heV:Vwa’s hit if
by a Tata Indica Car bearing

7277, in the said accidenVt”vheV–sufiered’ was

admitted to the hospital. Afte’r’is.efrei1..daysA,’he died due to
the injuries suffered the The cause of

accident, injgmes-.suffered}l:~,{A’hli’rfe.fdeath caused by the

injuries, _r:.ol?’evreg_e*.of”.insu_ran.L:e of the vehicle involved in
the accident, lfieibiliaty oi”‘–t_he”appelIant — insurance company
herein are ncitin’ dispute.

. “This appeal is filed by the insurance company

.V_ch_aiiAe’e<§l_nVg the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Tr.i_buaAe'll. It is the case of the appellant — insurer that

the deceased whe was aged 48 years at the time of death
if . €;"§'."«[€:r5i.«icf "

.~_”i

AWE 9% xlf”§”E.9 5:; rs

– deing agricultural work and also

= ._: «= .. .=_ …._;..-

if ” -“carrying on goldsmith profession, he was earning income

Z}c»:,.l

from both profession amounting to Rs.6,GO0/- oeifhlllhonth.

The said statement of the claimant relating

of the deceased is accepted by the _Tri’_Abtuha:EA.l.::’at.nd

proceeded to hold the loss of diepehidefhey o4f’the–.cleltn3llits ”

-S

at Rs.4,80t’.}/- per monthehd alwelrded ;:.e:zf:’_i3:ehseei;¥oh

Rs.6,91,200/- under the heetl.:of loss of-d”epehd:”ency.

4. The appelAl:e_h-t;-‘iiflefire1o.:l5e¥§'{it:’.’~aggrieved by this
has challen’-ged£l.d:iia1 thisiaeipeali’i’l;§i’at…..l§here is no proof or
evidence .’.:,clei.f;’11″a’nts to show that the
deceaeed”x£les goidsmith in addition to
atteridéhlg to activity and the aepellant -~

insuifer elseV_Vchel”E-engeé'”awarding the amount in a sum of

tolilvertisv loss of estate, in addition to, loss of

i calculated on notional earning of the

dejeeased awarded compensation under the said head.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.

W

6. The point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is “whether the Court below in the absence _._of proof

and evidence adduced by the claimant was in

holding that the deceased was doing agricLfiiVtu’ral’.¥.?vork~’–uas.é

well as the work of goldsmithssand .

Rs.6,000/- per month?” ‘

7. It is seen thVat.4__except”the sqizniainie

deceased as ‘Akkasaii’ which’is_V’attached.to his name, there
is nothing on record;::iio..sho’§vt.he.deceased was doing

go¥dsmi_tnA ‘4Tlfhe__\oviiJence of the PW–1 who is none
other ‘thanlifirst. widow of the deceased who is

asiriterested__V’VWitness” regarding the evocation of the

‘as goldsrnith cannot be reiied upon. Except the

tors} of FW-2 there is nothing on record to

As’u:.bst_antia~te the claim of the respondent herein to seek

.. cornpensation on the ground that he was doing the

it business of golosmith.

W:

8. Admittedly, the deceased was swing an extent
of 3 acres 20 guntas of land and doing agricuItutia’i’»,yvork.

The Eand continues to be with the ciaimants

of the family. However, there is loss tothéj”f§nai:lyn_insot”a,rl

as supervision of the agrictiittiralb_:Aé(;tE§.’lt)?”_its:’C<;r!}Cé[i}ed_ 2

Hence, the said loss vC'0.i_Jid 'i:e"'i-rightist.Aassessedi Vat'

Rs.3,0€)0/- per month. Them, the~.,¢As;fiipe'ii;aVtion that
the claimants areentitledW_Li:ideit:'the head of toss of
dependency is 2,500

9; ' V Etfisll by the claimants that
immediately, the deceased was admitted

hVespx'itei.iyi_th grievous injuries and he was treated

' 'tier _¥_njt1ries for a period cane week and that they

H * ihaiaalvsi5ent':=.Rs.2S,000/» for the treatment of the deceased,

as ,.a'gai'tist that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

'' 'Rs.8,i330/-~ only. Considering the nature of the injuries

'sdffered by the deceased and also the length at treatment

' prior to his death, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is meager and the same is required to be

'M?

increased to Rs.20,G0O/-. so far as loss of .eojnso:tium

towards the first claimant, it shall be

of love and affection for cla_ima_nts _–1″”‘to:’_’;v5g””:sh.allvs-Lbe»

R$.25,000/-.

10. The compensatioial-aw’a_{deo”uiieolerfioéther heads

i.e., loss of estate, trafn’spoérta2tioHn”‘of:l body and funeral

and obsequiee.expe:nses is and the same
ooes not . to

11,. it observations, the claimants

are eintitiedv ‘ ta: in ail in a sum of

8ts;.4″,EI3,GCl0}’-sV_V_Vas against Fts.7,79,20{}/- awarded by the

“Accordingly, this appeal of the insurer is partiy

‘a”¥_ioiweo”_..a_atl’V:’tiie award passed by the Tribunal is modified

to*–.the’extent that the claimants —- respondents herein are

.. e3jtit¥’ecl to a sum of RS.4,7G,D0l}/-» aiong with interest at

i’ per annum from the date of petition till payment of

ecompensation amount. The amount which is in deposit

shall be transferred to the trlbunai. The tribunal shaii

Lot;

depositthe share of the minors in fixed deposit until

attain majority. In respect of compensation to be__;:§a’ic.4′.r’i:_r.§..’___i S

other claimants, the same shat! be released…§§r£tjv~r§.t§r’._ 1 T

without insisting to deposit the sameI__%n Zaay. r.ati¢nai1ig¢aar:_’f, i’

bank.

[)5