IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA % DATED THIS THE 12"' DAYOF L THE HUMBLE MR. MISCELLANEOUS F1331' % 1654 oF%2m6 (MV) Company § ChickmagaIu$¢"BIi;-gach _. A Through %ifs'}?.¢gionéi"Ofi"iQe- _ Leo S}i1_)ppii;gVCi3;'aag3l'e>;'"»_ ~----__ ' ~ No. 44,545, Resid:;:'1'cj?~Road"»».. Bangalorééiéfl 025 V* " Repremntcd by its Adminisiraiivti Ofliccr % k%s;i.1a' ._ 4 " Rasitiéfiis 111.'. _. « V % k% .nantarana.az<1d Village A czmkmgggazugciay RESPONDENTS
1-3, 3 are Served and Unrcspresentcd,
Rcspondztnts» 4 to 7 are minors represented by Respondent
#1!!!-‘*$
“This Miscelianeuus First Appeal is filed under Scclion
% %%173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against me judgement and
‘ ” award dated 28.10.2005 passed in MVC. No. 23622002 on the file
” ” of the Additional District Judga and Member, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribttnai, Chikjnagalur, awarding a comp cf Rs.7,3I £00/–
6’?
3
with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petitiun till tlie dete of
tilt} payment. ”
This Appeal earning on for hearing
delivered the fellowing:~
Junemegxti
Heard the counsel For V _ ii
2. The respendents are
3. The appellant is the i_1’1’saii~’::i’Lif §:t’m’t:t.tir–.yehiete which was
involved in an: fef :-incident, the husband
of resifioneienti He was an agrieuiturist by
uccupatioiii«–aixd iiireefxiildent her children including major
«. ageii”:m1t.her had joined the eiaim for compensation
Aecidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred
te ‘the for brevity). The Tribunai has computed the
less titfiependency at Rs.7,20,000r’«. The basis for which was that
iiieome of the deceased was taken at R:~;.6,000;’-. It is this
….virhieh is primarily contested in the appeai.
4
4. The Counsel for the appellant would argue that lands
that were available to the deceased continue to be in of
the respondents. There is hence no loss of sourceof ‘
loss of dependency would have to:-¥)e”eomp-fitted.tefinefoti the f
benefit that the deceased would have
way of his contribution in of
other respfitte- Sexx)nd3’§/,…&_Tribunal to
have assumed that there on a regular
basis. as an occupation being what it
is, it is not iitiyri Tribunal to have proceeded on the
V. A’ hasizsfithgtt’ etVvcerlaii”n.«eu_mwas avaiiable as income to the family of
mmputing the loss of dependency. In any event,
has been calculated on 5:! higher scale and
would have to be scaled down. The Counsel for the
jii”iiappeii.«ant would submit that in the absence of any acceptable
..,eVéidence as to the source of income, the reasonable amount that
it may be adopted would be Rs.3000r’- as the monthly income of the
deceased and hence; would submit that the appeal be allowed
6′
while reeompuiing the compensation towards loss of defy:-gndeney
on that basis.
5. On an examination of the r-:.eo:”.e.34 A attfd {he Ta,_e£_.s and ;
circumstances of the case, since
appeal, the question would in discretion’
oflhis Court. As thereisnéo though it is
not in dispute that there avaiiubie which
Ibrmedtlie iheeontribution of the deeea’ sed’ in
generating the undermined. If this is taken
zeasouahly R:s.S0.(30iA’§’-iIV1«s£ead of Rs.3000:’— as suggested by the
V. and if Rs.6000;’- which was adopted by
lo Rs.5000/—, the ioss of dependency
woixid siiindseeonaputed at Rs.6,00,00G/- instead of Rs.7,20,000r’-
V ._ whis_:h isreasonabie and just.
‘ ‘fileoordingly, the appeal is ailowed in part- The amount of
‘ “compensation lowards loss of dependency shall stand reeomputed
at Rs.6,00,000:’- instead of Rs.7,20,O001′-. The other heads of
3
cumpe:n:saiun are not disturbed The appeal is aisposg¢iL [%o£k%Tkkk%
accordingly. ‘ A
The axmunl in deptxsit be mined lo £fi¢V:_v:ti”fi.)Vuna;IA
ofthc chinnants respotxicnis in team of ‘ ”
SR