Raihan W/O Late Anwar vs B J Danmal Jain on 26 March, 2008

IN THE HIGH CQURT GF KARNAEAKA AI BANQALQRE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHIDRNRNDR_fifiL§fiSff flflU

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.$;9Acfi35PfihS' '{1%na'l_  observed that the claimants have not

'tproduced; the certified c-py of the scsne of
jeccfirrenoe penchanam or any other documents

w relating to the inv'stiqation to prove rash and

"a negligent driving. Anyhow, the Tribunal after

: taking into consideration the contents of the F.I.R.

 

C
9/
0("___,



L________(  

[which has not been marked -in the evidence] held
that the offending vehicle was heavy vehicle when
compared to the motor cycle and in that viee%efrtue

matter assessed. the contributory neglicerlcefet 

(D
I}.

on the part ef th

("1'
CI

and 20% on the per

river of the offending vehicle '

f the deceased. This finding is '

not in dispute. Though :it ieg_contendedi that 'the.

fll

egligence was solely on the part er the driver of
the offending vehicle, *itheieT¢the taut} of the
claimants to prove that act by ercdecing material on
record and examinincwieye neiteeeaee; if available.

In view of the tact tfiet no material has been placed

on record ite "prove gebeclute rash and negligent

an

driving on the part cf the driver of the offendin

H'
F.5-
:3

vehicle, we do not find any such ground made eu
the appeal tc.Qrove the eheclete negligence e1 the

lpart'of*thewdriver ef the offending vehicle.

4'

Viaoil'l3$he"ilearned counsel for the appellants

--' contended. that the deceased was a businessman and
Hd'the~_eseeeement of his income by the Tribunal at
4iJRe;75eO0 per day is on lower eide= Apart from
R"=redistration certificate-Ex;-2 and licencefiEx.?3,

"nothing has been produced

regarding
§Ef:f'



deceased, Except interested version of ?.'u'u'.1, no
material is placed on record. In the absence of any

'iaterial, the Tribunalhas taken the incotne'.:"of¥.4the

deceased at Rs.'75-00 per day as the :.'_'wa's'_

carrying on some business,.....Th'ere*f.orVe;.'.1» there .

noting on record to consider ;"enjha«ncement"' :'cff::,the

compensation towards loss:  denendenc-yr'

'F. The Tribunal has" notiuewarded"conapensation
for loss of love anédhi the deceased
left behind _:'¢*l.§i1f":'iit9' \t§""n:'inor children.
Taking into  vasnect of the matter,
we deexnamount of Rs.15,000-00
for lose__ofilove'.antfaffection at Re.5,000-00 each
for apnelliant/cla:;in:an't:"Nos.2 to 4. In view of the

factjwthat uth-eAA'clai.1xr':ants are entitled to 80% of the

3J"=of cornbeinsation, they are entitled to

  there is contributory negligence o

25

the Vpart.--c--:VE'lV the deceased i.e.; rider cf the rotor

u_cycle~~tcj.'rh extent of 20%.

---cw

 The Tribunal has awarded compensation for

_,loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral

 expenses, etc. Hence we do not think that the ewe:

13..

of compensation by the Tribunal is unreasonable c

:3

 
 



other heads. In that View of the matter; we are of

In the circumstances, thémappeél.i§h&11¢fied'1hi

part. In addition to the §@m§éh$atioh"awaffiéd by

the Tribunal, the appeiiagtalcléimfihgsfléE%"éfititléd

10
ill
:3
gill
.3
O
I-
:3
(T
O
H':
5
Eu
3...:
to
-

(3
C3
C3 ‘ V
(D
.–.

I-

1′!’
I-

I-

‘.1.

‘.25
fl’
fl
Q»
an
fl!’
m
H?’
G’:

g:

L:

So £ar§.va’s,_f_:he1g11st:£1bu£’ién._._9f the compensation

is concerhéfi,r”fhé”ifiihdihjh of the Tribunal is

maintained;fg’M
….. .. Ski/– /
fudge
So’/~
.Ldge

” . r'{Sm~”~’–7