IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOI?i3"»R. DATED THIS THE 7"' DAY 01»? SEPTEMBER 2039.' ' BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s. 433%/'YrL::,Nf1>ZEE1j? " 'V R: J T REGULAR FIRST APREALAz0.1093/2307 (R135; 1 u Between: (O&MI)ivis4i:3t1)_, V _ _ . Karnaiaka PoW?§.7I"ranéc«.mié?Si6n 4' CorporatioxzLirfxi_t.e':£," ~ Mandya 9-".VS7-:'1R4'01. ' 4, V' 2 The':Chai1'mah'; .. KPTCL, Cauvery' ~ «. Kempegoéwda Ribadj. " _ Bangalore'? 5V60.0£)9.". " Secretary, ...... .. ' . VKPTCL.,Cai'1«very Bhavan, ' _Kem1§cgowuda.R.oad, 2 Bangai015e..~Y§60 009. Appellants. * 'R Sri B. Rlfiragowda, Adv.) ,1 UDGMEN T Though this appeal is posted for admission, by consent_:_of' the learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for. .fin_'avI_vhea:rin_g, i heard and disposed of by this judgment. 1 2. The first respondent is theiiiiiplsailltiff. The A_appieIIants are
defendant Nos.l to 3 and second “defendant No.4 in
the suit. For the sake of convenience,itheipairties’are ‘referred to by
their respective before the’
3. :’7i_’he._ piaintiff-.. aforesaid suit for award of
compensation “on accountiof deiath of her son Boregowda. It is the
_ case of the p1.aintiff.’that: her son Boregowda was doing agriculture.
i7.It :1’s*fty1i’ther contended that the joint family of Boregowda was
owi;jng9.__s1 ‘iin’iii9y.No.79/2, 8 guntas in Sy.No.79/4 and 33
V V guntas in Siy’-..:I\.Io;7i9/11 situated at S.I.Kodiha11i. The said lands are
“i.’AuadJiace;1t4_to the lands of one Bullaiah. Buiiaiah had raised paddy
lands and the Boregowda had raised sugarcane crop in
5
E
233%
“The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with”
COSIS.
The plaintiff is entitled for a Mcornpen_=satioii«iiof
Rs.5,91,000/–. Out of which, the plaintiffisentitledpforéi – f
half share along with 4″‘ defendant. i4’l’he”de.fenda1i.;ts:l °
to 3 are jointly and several.ly._liable” to
compensation amount within
the amount will carry iateiest 4?) date of
realisation.”
5. Sri Rudr’a.go’5y_d_a, Cioainsel appearing for the
appellants w’oucldihatVth’e appelianéts do not dispute the
cause for thvegacicyident vtothe death of Boregowda and their
liability to pay the compcnsatioirl His only submission is that the
:.«-‘co.mpens_atio;niV awarded”b–y~–«’the court below is excessive and
exorbita;at._ i,argned that the deceased was doing agriculture
duriagie relevianttciipoint of time. The accident took place on
plaintiff has not produced any material evidencing
of the deceased at the time of accident. Therefore, the
coixrtiiiaelow could have taken at best his income at Rs.lOO/– per
it
r.
day. The Court below should have followed the method adopte’ds._V_
while awarding Compensation under the Motor Vehicles ‘ ;. ‘
said method is applied, the compensation payable !;rideri:tl3e”‘h,ead
‘loss of dependency’ comes to Rs.3,84,(l{l0/–::’tald’n§intoVlaclcount ‘A
the multiplier at 16 since the deceased was aged about
6. On the other hand, learned=.Co11nseE appearing for the
respondents have sought to “j’a.stify_.”hthe”impugned judgment and
decree. Learned Counsel for the ‘plainti’1;ffrespohd,ent’No.1 submits
that the first respon~deiiatVp:E~eing:=the rnoth’er:of:_the_deceased is entitled
for 50% oifthe the “other hand, learned Counsel
for the second”respond’ent that the second respondent was
._aged a.b§out “27 yea’r’s–..at_ the time of the death of her husband.
“_”i’heref0_re, ..she,1s.,e”nti_tled for atleast 75% of the compensation.
the learned Counsel for the parties, the
question for’ -consideration in this appeal is whether the
C ,”‘compensatio–n awarded by the court below is excessive?
l
ll:
Y.
8. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the§i_:accid_e’n.t_f _
and the liability of the appellants to pay theycompensati’o11-it is”als0_
not in dispute that the deceased Boregow’da,*i was
years at the time of the accideni;_’v’Adn2ittediy,
agriculture. The respondents herein mother’ who
were depending on him for have been
produced by the firstresporidetlthinicome of the
deceased during«–tEie.4_re:iey’ant V”l’heiiideceased was an
agriculturists. ,_it take his income as
Rs.l00/– per and reasonable to award
compensation’ accoiidaiicetyiith the method adopted while
-v.aWardiiig. cvornpensationvnnder the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the
ideceased v.zas’.ageyd”33 years at the time of his death, it is proper to
adoptthe properipittinltiplier 16. 1/3″‘ of his income has to be
‘ deducted .to”wjardis his persona} expenses. Therefore, applying 16
multiplier and taking his income at RS100/– per day, and after
___”‘dedacting 1/3″‘ of the income towards his personal expenses, the
it
10
appellants on 28.8.2007 pursuant to an interim order passed in this
appeal. The appellants are directed to deposit balance of the
amount before the trial court within a period of eight weeksTtronj’.s…
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The couiitibelow
directed to apportion the award amountfn’ the’ ratio;oif”l30;70:l«’
between the mother and the wife of the decfifisdilil I f11lfil’1e1*».di~relU[¢l’l’.. V’
that 50% of the amount awarded to eac’h:o”f the respondents shallllhe
kept in a Fixed Deposit in a nationalised a period of three
years and the balance of the aniountv ‘sh’a11’…l;5etijvsbilrsed to the
respondents herein, The ‘:1<espo_nden.ts' are i'eii_tit1Ved:fto draw interest