I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED: 21'?" DAY OF JULY 2003
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.GOPALA T '
AN9
THE Hzx:*BLE: MR.J'UST1CE '
MFA No. s752ri§as % A
Between: ' H
I. Kaipesh, -------- _ ' " __
S!Q.1at::Gya;ia;é&shwar, _ -
Rio. Irafii Co10'ny, _
Chidri Roazi,' Bidar.
2 . "
v' w Sic; 'iate: __GyananéShW_ar,'
"I'J§iIict*, fkjprés-rfgzted by his
' PafergaigitirgiePrabhakar,
' s;'a."Ra:;g'a.na1h',; V %
Mgqhafiic,
R.:'of"}ra;z.i Cciiegzy,
Chidri" Rgéad, Bidar. ...APPELLANTS
(By Sri Basavaraj R.Math W Advocate)
9»--'7
-. % L Branch Manager,
National Insmrarzce C0.Ltd.,
Begum Bazar Branch,
Hyderabad"
(__~_b"-\.,--\/-
2. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Basaveshwar Chowk,
Gandhi Gunj Road
Bidar.
2. Jaffar,
Sfo. Hyder Hassain,
Driver-cum-Own er sf
LorryN0.AP13 T1121,
H.No,l I»-L289, Aghapura, _ A i " '
Hyderabad. ' _ .RESP(;fi'$DE1\!TS
(By Sri. Gangadhar S,3I'Ji;§(ZI1Ii':'-',, foi'..R-J; Absent)
Sri Sudarshzm, M --:_AdY_:3,(;v'a'*i.<§:A for R-2)
Natice ié ('R-3 , dispexi .§§ri-fix.
0%
MF1i5yisifi1efl 'oi the MK/.Act against the order dated
21-3-2, J, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
AA _ T1i2a…ii:’appel1ants herain being the claimants in MVC Ne.
on the £338 of the Learned III Addiiionai Civil Iudge(Sr.Dvn.)
ii i’4:”&;”isfIACT-III, Bédar (hereénafic: referred in as “MACT” for short),
liava seught for enhancement of ccsznpensation awarded in their favour
by the impugned cummen judgmeni and award dated 21-3-2005
passed in the said case and ether cennectcd cases.
–{“””‘-“”‘*~\/
2. Heard the argmnents of Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri Sudarshan, leamegl ‘é;:l:i’a2;:1$el for
insurance cempazzy who has undertaken to file V’akal;é;t’n:…’;l?lg§fi:$éd the
impugned common judgment and awarfl and thc”rél§%:xr§1h»f d9c”u_fr1enfs~–
placed on record.
3- Since this appeal is by’lhve-.g1ajrhanlfs
compensation and the 2″” ;_r§:sponfi<hfll;€nsiig¢r nht any appeal
against the impugned 'are not 3d\,*.BI't.':i}g to the
factum cf aacid§.:r;t,;' '_a:li;ui.:c:léz;1"if-..Qbt:ing "the rash and negligent
driving Qf i.nvoliz'::d inthe accfident, the injuries sustained
by the clajmalmtl as}. a.ré'Shll,.45§.§hél.said accident etc,
On A the impagned judgment ft is seen that the
'?§r:ii:3,1;1al_VlV'}'ia..§s-.€£l:£l:':{¢_n the finccsme of the deceased Sn3'£:.Suneetha – the
-aphhllafits ~» at the rate sf Rs.50!~ per day far estimating
Tlhe lclhs..<:ll§*.£dae.i}lenda:1cy. In View of the fact that thc: accideni occurred
'A {he deceased should have been taken ts be eazzfizzg Rs.}0G5'-
V' péf day, if not Rs.l5{),?- as claimed by the claimants' If that inceme is
» ll taken, it CGIIISS to Rs.3,{}{){)!'~ per mozzth. If l:"'3"i of it is deducted
towards her personal expenditure, her contzihiztion tea the family
azcrnsisfléing wauld be R3.230OG.s'~ per xncmth or R§.24,0C3Q,»-'- per asmum.
¢~.._c*-.~x,,..
Since the deceased was aged 30 years as per the post; mortem report,
the proper multiplier ta be adopted wouid be ’26’ as rig11flyj¢hosen by
the Tribanal. Thus, the compensation under pf
dependancy’ comes to Rs. 3,84,000i’- (R5 24=99G:’~–A4.j§;’;r:
and we hereby award the same as agdinst; bf *:
the Tritninal. A
5. The Tribunal has.awa1*§1c;,iVVV:.é3;ziy-.Rs.54OG0.!: mmds funeral
expenses and R.s;.3,000/- tews of the dead body of
the deceased ‘–~We§;he{eb’§* e11ha’1;£;§:’eé;dch Caf these amounts w
Rs.5ooo:– undéi”é%::.3.;jé:s:pec1;{ve:,__hc:a¢Zs_
6- ‘I”éh34″l’ri1:>’2ii32i}””h:a:: ‘:1’i’e_f’aJ§varded any amaunt af campensation
ta th¢._f§§1.éti1nantsV’tev§i§irds idioss of love and affection. Therefore, we
in each {If the appellants inwards loss of
low: and af}’e?.i’iic>é§;,V
the Kata} amount of compensation which the
“;é4§3;3§ll333ts-claézzsants are entitled :0 receive from the z*esp<:mdent~~
' …_fi§;1s1irer, including the amount {if compensation awarded by the
.44:."Tribunal, comes ta Rs;.4,22,000f-. The ciaimants are aiscz entitied to
interest on the enhanced compensating 3130 ai the same rate 33
awardad by the Tzibunai.
g—.._..(‘\–«r~\.
5
8. The appeai is ailowed in part in the above ter_m..§_:.” award
shall be Inodified accardmgly. The respondent
ghall depvosit the enhanced compensaticrrx-withi_int¢feT3t”thé:;r¢Qn’wiiiaiai
six weeks for the date of madificatian tfié ‘~ , «. ”
sci/..
%* Judge
%%'” k=” “” Judge