The Managing Director B M T C vs Sree Ramachandra on 26 October, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF ocTo_13:¥_?:I%:','A:;'>:V:iH1-(5  

THE HON'BLE MR.Jfi$TI¢E. " Y

 

THE HON'BLE MR.JU'SficF; 

 Noj139E§ "£007 (MV)

H . Hczw

M.F_.A .No.35_;i_O'F'g'20f)7Z{ii/IV)

The  Diréctor; ' ~ 
B.M.T..C 1_)epVo't;l:-._V " _  
Shanthi Nagar,  V
K.H.Road., - 
BangaJ0re4'2V7,'~ V ._
Repreaented byfiits'

 C1}»j'éfL§;w Qfficefi... ..... 

' __  2    Advocate)



. . , , _' ' V 1. Sréev _AR§-amachandra,
H  " * :S/o. Venkatajah,
   _ Aged about 47 years.

   Na arathna,
' ..  W 0. Sree Ramachandra,

Aged about 37 years.

.. ..Appe11ar1t



 

3. S.Shashidhar.
S/ 0. Sree Ramachandra.
Aged about 21 years.

All are R/ at Azadnagar,
II Floor. I Cross,
Banga1ore-- 18.

{By Smt.  Umadevarrnna,-Agdvoeatej V

$*tt*#¥fi"

This MFA is filed U/s;"'17.f_5{1)""of MVAC-tv*'against the
Judgment and Award datedfi 1-4,/O8;(2005passed 1'11 MVC No.
2648/2005 on the file'bf'the.VVI»'AddI..j'»SCJ, Court of Small
Causes and Member  'Banga]'ore"={SCCH-2), awarding
a compensatioéndof ?4.;OO,O00/7  in 'érest at 7% p.a. from
the date of petitfpn til1'--its13dépoSit_a11d't~a"set aside the same.

 Q  *

1 . Sree' Ra4n1Iac'h'andr:a...  "*-- I It
S/0. Ve11.ka'tE1iah.  '
Agedg about é}'i"year's,

V»»C*1ce:_ [New Nil)'.  ..... 

»  --» Nagarath

' _ a.W"/0_.' =Sr"ee"Ramachandra.

 ~_ "Aged about 37 years.

3. 
S/0. Sree Ramachandra.

 .. ,Aged*about 21 years.

  are R/at No.30,
; AzadnagaI,II Floor, I Cross.

I Bangalore.
....Appe11ants

{By Smt. M.C.Umadevamma, Advocate)

 .g."Respondentsg



 

And:

The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C,

K.H. Double Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore.

(By Sri.M.H.Motigi, Advocate) M' %

*1=:ra::,¢:.er_ 

This MFA is filed VA U/s'.s..157f3(1_] "of=.MV. Act against the
Judgment and Award dated; 14/08/200'6,passed in MVC No.
2648/2005 on.:th,e fire ofda-.~ .v1..jAdd1. 'scd, Court of Small
Causes and 1Vi%;n1ber;--. MACT, " Ba'nga1--ore (SCCH--2], partly
allowing the"'vcla~i_rn]  f::§r"«cion_1pensation and seeking
enhancerrie-nt.::ofwcorr1_pensatio'n;' "

   for Admission this day,
N.K.  VJdeIivere'd__the following:

 

Qeoemsmn

 'These wtrovtapvpiueals by the Corporation and the

 cJ,axiIn_a;j1Vts.4are arising out of the same judgment and

aakaaediora 14/O8/2006 passed in MVC No.

2648/ZQOS;ontheifleofflu:VIAddL SCJ, cxadtor

Srnail 'Causes & Member, Motor Accident Claims

--  Trihnnal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'

"  short).

*   }; .'Resp--ondent L'



 

2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award',-w.vvhas

awarded a sum of ?4,00.000/-- with  

from the date of petition till the date of  as against» _ 

the claim made by the clain1ant:=__vfor:_asum.of-.§'15,'00;000/--,

on account of the on .a'ct:'ountKo'f thet'v:'d-gjathggg of 

deceased Sri. S. Giridhar  

3. In brief, thezt-«fa':ts'fof 

The claimant :1  parents and
appe]1ant_No.l   deceased Sri. S.
Giridhar  Petition before the
a   1:66 of M.V.Act, Claiming
compenfsfation  respondents, on account of the

death if of the ""--detQ¢_a.sed in the road traffic accident,

 ,AC:vonte11.ding«..that, at about 7.45 a.m., on 20.4.2005, the

cleceased  going on the road at extreme left side near

 11th Pfatforln at City Market. at that time, the driver of

 "..fjthe0"bgus' bearing No.KA.O1.F.2580 while taking reverse

'  dashed against the parked vehicle and then he took the

04 irehicle in forward direction with high speed and dashed



 

against the another vehicle, which was going"-.on.x the

right side of the deceased, due to 

crushed between the vehicles 

and KA.O1.F.1838 and sustained

succumbed to the same.' -It is the' furth;erlw..icasg; of the'

claimants that, deceased    student
having excellent educational' reco"rd_,_'»he.was the hopes and
future of the parents   to l'iisluTnt~ir11ely death they

have suffered 'i'r_:.t.VT The said clairri' etition had come u
_  . L _ P P

for consid'e'ra'tion,_ beforelthe--vTn"l3unal. The Tribunal, in
turI1,7,after  the oral and documentary

evidenceland other" niaterial available on file, after

 asvsessing u the "'no.t.ional income of the deceased at

   month, deducting 50% towards his

personal.'.eX_penses and adopting multiplier of 15, has

 aWardeCl';.a sum of ?3,60,000/-- towards loss of dependency

A ":l,"aIso awarded €40,000/-- towards conventional heads

 and accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part,

 awarding the compensation of ?4,00,000/-- under



 

in the said accident are not in dispute.  it

emerges that, the Tribunal after assessinglithedtilgoral 

documentary evidence, has awarded'  T T 

towards conventional heads and the same is «jusdtjrid

reasonable and therefor.eE"'~.._>it  for
interference  A 1

6. Further,  only a
Sum Of ?3i60:.:Q('30/dependency after
assessing   deceased at ?4,000/--
per    towards his personal
expenses''   i\/Iultiplier of '15'. The said

compensation awarded": by the Tribunal is inadequate

   Itfieds tonlberenhanced. The Tribunal has erred in

 notional income of the deceased at

?.4,Q'OO/v:.fJe--r"h1onth and the same is on lower side and

"~..,therefo.re3; it needs to be modified, for the reason that,

  "'l:V'dece:'ased was aged about 22 years studying third year

  and the accident was occurred in the year 2005.

 Therefore, having regard to his age, educational



 

qualification and the year of accident, We reaasseseg his

notional income at ?5,000/-- per month. 

we deduct 50% (€2,500/--) towards  

living expenses, since he was '»bac,he.l-or,'thetdnet .:incbii1e

comes to ?2,500/-- per  Accepting.:v'th:e"muitiplierit

of 'I5' adopted by Tribunalfwe re--detennine_i:he loss of
dependency at ?4,5o--,«oioo/;'=cg(2:j,soo'/3»  x 15) instead of
?3,60,000/-- awarded  apnlddaccordingly it is

awarded.
  ground taken by the
learned counsehfor'the._§orporation that. the Tribunal

ought totxhave contributory negligence on the

  pa,j't'«:.of._th-.3' dece'ase--d'is concerned, there is no substance

 isubmission made by the Corporation and

the""sa1ne'V'ei'§seiiiable to be rejected at threshold, for the

'y_reason_tjhat, charge sheet has been filed against the

"_d~riye,r of the Corporation and he has been examined

 .353 RW1. who has admitted in his cross-- examination

 that. deceased was caught between the two vehicles. In



 

View of the said admission made by the dI'i'ver}.ofvV'the

offending Vehicle and by assigning the   pp

para--8 of the judgment, the Tribunal  j 

finding of fact holding that the 

on the part of the deceased'-V.eannot__beugeonleidered and

therefore, fixed the ;_1.QO°/capvpneg]'jge'1'1ee onthe of the
driver of the offendixngi'  finding of fact
recorded byéjthe and proper and
therefore;   

  fgltfigie  the impugned
judgment'  the Tribunal is liable to be

modified.V'"--Tl'le Vtotali Vcoillnpensatiori payable comes to

   ..... 

9_:’Aeeeo’rdingly, the appeal filed by the Corporation

‘is. as devoid of merits and the appeal filed by

thellolaljmants is allowed in part and the impugned

it jiidgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC

N§o.2648/2005 is hereby modified, awarding

compensation of ?4,90,000/- instead of ?4,00,000/–

If}

awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation
comes to ?’90,000/– with interest at 6% p.a.~,_’

date of petition till its realisation.

The Corporation is di–1:’e’ct.ed –‘ulto_» thee’

enhanced compensation with°.Virit_erest’,” ..wittl1«in-rlthree

weeks from the date of of atcopy
and award. V’ l 2

Out of the enhanced of ?90,000/~, a
sum of ?25,:O0l); interest shall be
invested any Nationalised or
Schedtilled “of each of the claimant
Nos. of five years and renewable for

another years ‘liberty to them to withdraw the

‘ V’ interest. accrued cnit, periodically.

v”e-remaining sum of ?4o,oo0/- with

pro.por_tion’a=te interest shall be released in favour of the

Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion, immediately,

_ A’ ‘on-deposit by the Corporation.

A»

The statutozy deposit made by the Corporation

shall be transmitted to the concerned

flnmediately.

Office is directed to draw the award, aooordfiagiy;