IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER,
:PRESENT: M.' 3A
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs';f:g:1a;1N.I;;PA?§j;n, 5.::: .
TI-IE HON'BLE 1vm.JUs'r1r:'_1«:
M.F.A.No. 2306 (Mi/_C)
BETWEEN:
1 Smt Shakira Bar}.u'."'» -- 1"
W/0 Late
Aged ab.0uf; 43f '1'7éars; 2
Occ:H0u s's:h'c5£'d. . _
2 -- .
S] 0 Late _Sye;§d.\7v'a.uz'id,' '
Aged about .'2.'1 '1"tf:a"1--'.s_. '
3 "N;;.1vee.V(1,'-» Z V'
" S] 0 Late Sye.d..Wazid,
Aged about 23 Years,
fI'e:é~1dents of Manclakki Batti Area,
H0léi}_<eé'e Road, Chitradurga.
Appellants
.. AA {'1i":3_'/.(.'Sl'"ViV"L B M Sidciappa & Sri.D.K.1\/Eadhusudhan, Advocates)
'T 1 K Ramesh Kumar.
S/0 Devappa,
Aged about 47 years,
Poojari, No.42.
Seethal Building,
Sheshadri Road, Bangalore.
Owner of Matador No.Ka--02--A--7090.
2 The Branch Manager, .
United India Insurance company-,« .
No.89/1, 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross, f A
Malleswaram.
Bangalore.
2 " -- L Respondents
{By Sri: K. Suresh, Advocate for ~§_zsR’1«.Served )
This MFA is fiiedggjj”/S 173;V{1)–“‘~ef’ivm-~Aet against the
judgment and _”award” dated gt 3.0,./6,”VO5. ” passed in MVC
No.40?)/02 or1″t1*i”e_fiie of Civii J1.idge7{‘Sr-I3n} & Member, Addl.
MACT, Chitrciduifga’, partly-…ai1.oud17.g the claim petition for
compensaf§on.:and se’e1;ing’vsseriliancenient of compensation.
on ._torvAdInission this day, N.K.
PATIL7 J , -_ Lie] ivezxedgi the following:
. G ME N T:
. “Admit. ”
A appeal is directed against the judgment
aae.e’a§2v’a’r’e ‘sated 30″: June 2005 passed in MVC
Noedaosc’/sV20c2 by the learned Civil Judge {S:r.Dn} and
Aae:;aeea1 MACT, Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to
Aas’;I’ribunal’fcar short). 4
I
I
3. By the judgment and award, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.2,s4,soo/– with interest._:at’_t’6%
p.a., from the date of petition till its
the claim made by the appel1~ants ‘oft
Rs. 13,85,000/–. Being aggrieaepi that,”
have filed this appeal, enh.arieerriei’3.t’;””on then
ground that, the amoiint ‘thev–Tri’;3una1 is
inadequate. in so far as of dependency.
4. In §1::rieifi_t.he ‘ease are:
Jixzagit and appellant Nos.
2 anti deceased Sri. Syed
Wahjitet-,. injuries sustained by him
in the ace’1’der1t_’t;hat oeeurred on 14.11.2001 at about
a;-ms,» A. nearfiarichacharya Kalyana Mantapa, B.D.
due to rash and negligent driving of
M_ataétorV. bearing No. KA.02.A.7990 by its driver.
while he was going in autorickshaw bearing No. KA–16–
It is the further case of the appellants that, the
it V. riieceased Sri. Syed Wahjid was aged about 45 years and
working as Manager with M/s. Maganur Basappa
:”
I
1′
I
I
I
Petrol Bunk, located on NH-4 road near Challakere
Circle and drawing the salary of Rs.4,000/~ per
and Rs.100/~ as batta. On account of
deceased Syed Wahjid, the appellants eeei it.hle.4_’_leg’a_ll ”
representatives, have filed a e’lajrnl”petition.,g elairnifig
Compensation of Rs. i
had come up for consideration.”_bet”ere the’vv-Trilounal on
sow June 2005. The fltearing both sides
and after analysing evidence,
has allowed in part and awarded
a sum” eorr1’pensation under different
headsizwitlil from the date of petition
till its de’posit,”.”– Bleingllaggrieved by the said judgment
andl’avvard,.pthelappellants have presented this appeal,
seeking.,_enh~ar1eement of compensation.
V ~lW.eAll’have heard the learned counsel appearing
for thevatppellants and learned counsel appearing for the
l’ -,See0r1d respondent.
6. After careful perusal of the material available
on record, including the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal, it emerges that, the deceased was
working with M/s. Maganur Basappa Petrol
earning Rs.4,000/– per month and battajjf
whenever he was doing night (?’.1;i’Ef,?.. «T V’
4′
awarded a sum of Rs.2,49,6dOV/¥’.A_’_lA’
dependency, after taking .of’thg¢._jdec4e’ased atl’
Rs.2,400/– per 1 /t’3r'<1"to'v'\;ards his
personal expenses of '13', as
the deceased:.xnras'g1-ageéjilllétlolotit~t§;EiVl'yegifsVj the time of the
accident. and it needs to be
modifiedtf" 'deceased was working in the
Petrol .»~'R.s.4,000/– per month and
battaof Rsa."'1QV'O/.–e ".asA"pef*P8–salary certificate. Taking
"all factors" divntodvconsideration, we deem it fit to
"ihoo_).ne of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per
month of Rs.2,400/– per month as taken by the
3'~.__V"*»"Ifribunalé:'and accordingly. it is taken. If the income of
it rthe.rdeceased is taken at Rs.4,000/~ per month,
__a__t%1r1ually, it works out to Rs.48,000/– and out of which,
it if 1/ 3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of
the deceased. the net annual income of the dec_eased
works out to Rs.32,000/–. The deceased was
years at the time of the accident and the
adopted Multiplier of 1:3. But interview '4la'Wt_:l.ai'dull
down by the Apex Court in the".ca.se'
and others Vs. Delhi .Co@o_rd~tVi'6rt bland".
another reported in 2.009'! thé'v–.appropriate
Multiplier applicable .the'e-ease is '14'. If the
net annual is taken at
Rs.32,0ooi/2 l:_a.n'd'll._appifopr.i_aite"-:_Multiplier of 14' is
applied; "dependency comes to
Rs.4,4l8«,iO'0.0/– — awarded by the
Tribunal an'd.Vacico'rdAingly, it is awarded.
far as"'the amount awarded by the Tribunal
e._'towards'gothetfigconventional heads i.e. Rs.i0,000/–
towards~lo_s:s of consortium; Rs.10,000/~ towards loss of
zu*"".__ll"»1ove and' affection; Rs.}.0,000/»~ towards loss of estate,
ap–d_l..le"Rs.5,000/~ towards funeral and obsequies is
…Concerned, the same is just and reasonable and it does
not call for interference.
5
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case as stated above, the impugned judgrn’en:t«–._and
award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be
9. Accordingly, the appeal.-is pa’1tl.l_:an’C1 ll
the impugned judgment and
Tribunal in MVC No. 409/ all’ i
compensation of Rs.{i;;53§,0OQ’/’:ilinsteael of’as.2;s4,so0/-
(enhancement being The enhanced
compensation « “Rs. _ interest at
6% p.a., its deposit.
The” t’e.spondent§lnsurance Company is
directelctto ve.o1npelnsation amount with interest,
within sixliweeksp Vf1forAn–V_the”:date of receipt of the copy of this
_ judgment and av{fard…… <
l l' _ enhanced compensation of Rs.1,98,400/–, a
sitrnilof – with interest shall be invested in the
name.' appellant No.1 in any nationalized or scheduled
» bars; for a period of five years and appellant No.1 shall be
'entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on it.
Out of remaining amount of Rs.73,400/– with
interest. a sum of Rs.25,000/– with interest shall be
released in favour of appellant No.1 and the rerriaining
amount of Rs.48.400/– with interest shall
favour of appellant N052 and 3. in equal-._:propo'rtioa; V'
immediately. on deposit by thelullsecnnlcll
Insurance Company.
Draw the award, accordingigr. X =._,