-;..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRC§}I'1' BENCH A'? i3HARWAD
DATED THES THE 315? DAY 0? 0CT0£3£';12..%_;§Q%:{s I"'V;. ~
PR ESENT
THE HoN'1f--3;..E MR.JUS'I'ICE D:.'V;'SH¥LEN1:;I2A'}«:.:Jj321Aia>
AND ,,
THE H€)N'."8LE P./1R..JVI,%":~3j'f1"'I~».:':»E .'S'».'VU.??'3IfI;*5'*gS:I':'i_:'1EV3V«§';'%v\F1:'.'i'éIVV
M1sc.F1!@;§* AP£5AJf;1;Né;s44zéGe5
EEYTWEEN:
S/0 Venkat~aP}3?:i 4'
3:869} about 59 'V ' V" ~
Occ; Ag1icu1i§1réi_ 2
R /' Of 31,: :;,_
Tailor Street' ' ~ _
C.B.Bz=:};ia1y. . ' = %
Bfillary. - * .. APPELLANT
(By S1i.Hanfiina_i1t--ha-- Ré¢:1§5? Sahukar, Adv.)
2 5'. I A. H ..... .. V
._ 0 H'.N§~..,Me:I1ad&vaiah
Qximer of Cab
Matti
Taiuk flospct
.. {)_i$t;ti'<:t Bellary.
" , '2.. "E"'--."3,--£i Divisional Managcr
§Um'teé India Insura;.11ce Co.Ltci.
Jfiellary'. .. RESPONIIBENT3
(By St'i.A..M.Ve11katcsh, Adv. for R-2
Sri,.Chandras1:zeka:: P.Pati1, Adv. for Rw 1)
-3-
This Miscfiirst Aypeal is fiieci under Section 173(1) sf MV
Act against the jucigment and award <:lt.28.7.i2004 passed in
MVC No.296/2003 on the file of the Pr1.CiviZ Judge (5-31:93.) fies
CJM.--cum.-«Member, MAC'§'--3, Bellary, partly allswing thgt claim
gctitien with costs for c0n:1pensa'£ioz1 and seeking erzhajairgznent.
of campensatiou. V'
This Appeal coming on for Hearing this
ADI J., dztiivemd the foiiowing; ' T' '
JU9GMmfif* a
Sri.A.M.Venkatcsh takes for ~
Company in the place of Sri. Sém--g'i"'~xt;al1ax:ce£z1en{ cf the
compcnsatiori. ' & ' x V
3. the deceased. 011 5.2.2003,
tbs r}e£§t3as;edV along with 116;" daughtar
smt.Gan_gam:na boa:Vdée M--a5§d Cab bearing §\Io.E-{A-35/2093 to
* gt) by paying the fare. At about 12.30 pm:
'Wha= nf was pimeedmg iowemis Ku::iifl1im' village, on
acéefifii evf and negligent driving by the dfiver of the
{ha éactiaseci was tmvefljng, turned turtle
{Qvife and daughter 0f the ciaimamt sustajfled grievcxus
and they wars shiftgd to VEMS Haspitai, Bcliary' W}.:zere
" Wife of the ciaimaat succumbed {G the injuries at about 8
p,m,
-3-
4. The claimant fileé a claim petition befcre the Tzibunai
inieralia, allcging that, his wife was halt: and was
Working as an agricuifsurai Coolie and was
day. The said ciaim pefition was resisted--~1af;
Company disputing the qua:1tu3:n:=__of <r4<$Az:%3;{'5;1 tfié ._{%\'?'i.§CI1{?€;'
accident was dug to the rash »V1:1':_1'i:ég1_ige13;V"t'{3,1'fiA\7if1g the driver
and that, the said vehj%:1i:3_ WES t1'iAeVAVi11s1zr<:r and
determined the con31Je11sa§i§;)tz._j;1i;L..§€;z;1V»LlfVb«*a1t/ --.
.....
:3. Thgcj the compensation
awarded by £133 Eippeal for enhancement.
appellant submitted that, the
wife of the V§{:T:a§Vj1;.a11V9t.was”a:§agxicu1tura1 cooiie and was earning
…_Rs.1v!£}!;}./Vf “z~s1:V1d éay, apart fram attending t9 the
Ht: submitted that, the Tflbufia} erroneously
of the cieceased at Rs.50/ »~ per day and
_v the detezmtzaiicn {Irf 1033 sf degzendency by
tfié iflfifimfi of the deceased 3?; 1533.50 /~» per day is on the
f *_.3s:5%.s2fVe”3i* 51313. as 3135 suhmitted than on other }:1ca.d$ also, 3
~ ‘ méagcr comyensaticn is awarded.
7?. Leazfncd Ceunsei fer the Insurance Company submitted
thai, the deceased was an agricuitural ceoiie and rsasonabie
granted Rs. 10,0043] »
-4-
income has been taken by the Tribunal and appmpxiate
campensafion has been éetaxmmed and fuxther s:1bmi1Vl_§t:-:;d*.f_that,
the award does not call for izzterference.
8. There is no dispute as reggxrl .:e_;-::c’iiz:§er;t
liabiiity of the insurance Company.
to the enhancement of quantum ei)__f coépéfisaficmf’ j_T:l:_;gg~, agiiciéicfitw
was in the year 2003. Evan g;os1§t”(3f also the
income :33″ the R;~:~v*.’.”1{“)vvG/ – per day
is a reasonahlc inggme claimant has
reasonably that, the deceased
was earning ;I;1 o:§;:xj considered opus’ 10′ :1, in the
year 2(}{§3, ‘€h,{;’ ‘t}1?é’v’–agricuii”ura} Coolie can be taken at
125.1001 – ‘gjezf *daj*.’ this, the deceased was a
V hausgfgkife and Afiftéfidving to the household work aiscu
factors, £113 inceme sf the deceased coulzi
EC’]– per &ay. By giving deduction of .1f3*’¢
_towa3i1s he:-fiefsonal cxpfmscs, in our opinion, applying ‘£316
the 1033 «of dependency could be Worked gut at
:§?37V2*,8$«,90O/~.
9. insofar as other heads are COflCf:I’.Ii1{fYd, the Tribunal 1138
{awards loss’ cf fixpectancy of life,
Rs.10,00{)/»« inwards loss ef consoriium and Rs.5,0€rO/~ towards
;*»ig[:’:i’3-.-»
I
_…
-5-
funeral exyenses. Aztimitteriiy, the claimant has lost his Wiff: and
it is 315:} £033 to the chiliimn of mothcriy love. the
age of the deceased and also considering the
WE fiud it appmpriate to enhauce {ye said’ “Cu:ii§3¢it:§a’i:iou.L_ Vat,
Rs.5G,OO{)/~ as against Rs.25,900}_g au;g>iae§.%é my o¢:_3;ér %
heads. in all, the claimant is -._¢ntit1£i~:1 fz>r 3%; 2
against R$.2,05,0{)G/ — awarded ‘
Accoxdixlgiy, the The claimant is
entifled far a / — with inttzzaest
£3 6% on of petition iii} its
payment. __ A3 issued by the Tribunal
0f..c{;1§apensation is concerned, the
same stands §;nd.isf*u_1″§éti;* é
…..
Judge
Sd/-I
Iudgé
KE’e”M[~