MFA No. 4504/2009
C/W MFA CRGB-.>l 9/2010
his mother and natural guardian IS' respondent
All are residing at
Kuruvangi Village
Chickmagalur Talluk
4. Sri. Ranganatha Shetty
S / o Ranga Shetty
Aged 38 years
R / at Kuruvangi Village
Chickmagalur Taluk
( Exparte in Trial Court} g - 0'
5. Sri. Ananda Shetty --
S / o Ganga She"ttylC '
Aged 38 years if"
R/at Narigluddlanal
J yothinagar .Po*st<.; ., _,
Chickiriagalinj Taliik'
ham Village.
[Exp arte in Trial rt} ., 2 V."
» l K1 ...Respondents
{Byz Sri: Jagadish,.G;Ktinjiar;._Ad*(r. for R1 and R2]
V. Th'is'¢.Mi_scellaneo'us----First Appeal is filed under section 173(1)
of Aet against the judgment and award dated 20/09/2008
passed i'n.NlVC;N'o,654/06 on the file of Addl. District Judge and
Memher;'_Addvl.;'--«MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal Fast Track Court
V»: I, Chickinagaliir, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,35,000/-- with
interest from the date of the petition till realization.
" gyi.-F:.p..pcRoi3'.;fio. 19/20 10
1:'; A Renukamma,
/0 Late Sri.Krishnashetty.
in " - .0 A A «W " --. ~ Aged 46 years,
2. Kunrlndramma,
D/o Late Srilirishnashetty,
Aged 26 years,
MFA N0. 4}p5U4/2009
C/W MFA CR€g)B"-is 79/2016
3. Chandrashekara,
8/ 0 Late Sri.Krishnashetty,
Aged 18 years,
Since minor rep. By his mother .
N / Guardian, 15' Cross Objector/ lst Appellant
All residents of Kuruvangi Village, _ »_ ,
Chikmagalur Taluk 8: District. : <v--;'L'L'.';flSf:OB'35'lE.(;TCDl3'x.S
{By Sri.M.S.Raghavendra Prasad,'Adyocate] '- A
AND: A I
1. Sri.Ananda Shetty,
S/o Ganga Shetty, V
Aged about 39 years.' _ 2: --~'
R/ o Nariguddanahaltififiillage, ._
Jyothinagar Post, _.Chikrnagalfu'r, 6' V :
[Owner of TVS V.ic1:oi'e.; _, 6 V "
Motorcycle Beafirzg N o5.fKA--'i~8:/L 1162"]
2. The Branch_lVi"anag.er;f"~.V° .
Oriental Insurance Co. "Ltd, A
Chikmagalur. .c ' "
" , _ : Respondents
"(By Sri'.'M.V_,pPoonacha;vAdv. for R2]
"rhis1VMi?.A;c'_m1§oin MFA No.4504/2009 filed U/Order 41 Rule
22 ofi'Cl4'C R/wf--Sec.j'lv?3[l} of MV Act, against the judgement and
1VV..__aVward Dated: 2O'--7(}9--.2OO8 passed in MVC No.664/2006 on the file
'of'Additio'n_al District Judge 81 Mact, Chikmagalur, partly allowing
"athe 'claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
' " " compensation'; "
,3":{;l'i"§~§i"ar}§'gL.i~:g_sgC0I1'1l1'lg on for Admission this day, the court
* fdye_livered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is by the insurance company challenging
the judgement and award passed in MVC No. 664/2006 by
‘<
MFA No. 4504/2009
C/W MFA CROB I9/2010
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chick1nagalur;~..y'_:'i~fI'he
ground taken up by the insurance company
selecting the multiplier, the TribunalMcomrni'tted–:an'V"eri"or
considering the age of the deceased. V7-It
is a case of death then the multiplier of age of-it
the parents should be taken. Inpthefinst_anthcase.,A the mother
is aged about 42 years and"ac'cording1y"the:%multiplier should
have been 14. As against :hé 'sg§.m_¢«£11¢ has selected
17 considering 'decéealsled.' Hence the learned
counsel submits [hvé«..'évpp6Ei1 by setting aside the order
of the Tribunal. 4' _ T V 'T
2. th’e'”ca–seeis called twice none appears for the
respondent_» ” at
3. Theclaim is made by the mother. sister and
of the deceased. Mother’s age as declared in the
Tint.’*..’;clfim”petition is 42 years and therefore it is appropriate to
‘ talbethe multiplier of the mother. It is not stated properly by
Tithe claimants as to the occupation of the deceased.
Accordingly the Tribunal has taken notional income at
l<
MFA No. 4504/2009
C/W MFA CRO$ I9/2010
Rs.100– per day which comes to 13,000/– per rnonth;~…_:'§t is
not true that the claimants have not piaced
or evidence in respect of the income the_-'decedaseddei it
stated in the petition that the deceased the.iov§ner
motor bike bearing No. KA~ 18/_v'1-1.62,' iwhichp V it
along with his friends. shoWs.u:th_a't–»_.phe 'auras, necessarily
earning an income more today. Accordingly
his income would be_:".3,0O:t)'/9'iit:11ce«.V?;h_¢; caicvulation would be
3000 x 12 x 140 3i.f55i;OQ_0;/4:".in*hich would be loss of
dependency;
4. CornpensAation’~.Vun.dVer remaining are undisputed.
Cfheis_iAV:ac,cording1y–«disposed of. Amount in deposit be
transrrzitted -Accidents Claims Tribunal.
i’ii;–piiiV\r.i’m ems 109i/2010
“ii objection filed by the claimant for enhancement of
V’ dfiiedjicompensation on the ground that the deceased was
Rs.5,000/- per month. Since he was Working as a
labour contractor for several Coffee Curing companies in
Chickamagalur. In respect of his claim that the deceased was
°<
MFA No. 4504/2009
c/w MFA CROB-,19/2010
earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, it is not examinecijdiétnhfrbdody
and not produced any document to that effect. vviewv
same the question of enhancement o«fdco'n2pe'nsation'.does' not
arise. Hence the cross objection _stande_ dismisse.t_:1,t " "
bsv