1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE namn 'r1-us THE aw DAY or NOVEMBER 2098 I'RESEIN"£' kk ' TI-IE Holwnarz m2.Jus'rIcE v.Goz=Am THE I-IOWBLE mz.JUs'rIcE MI$C.FIRS'I' APPEAL1§o.5'5'f6; 2o%1s§c§_f;; V( B N: A . 1.
Vasantha
W/cxiate Naga:’aja@ Naga- .* ” —
2. «
3. Sushma V ‘
Botkx é15pé11ant$ and 3 are
Sm”: and dé%11J._ghter pf 1E:i’€C Nagaraja
“@’:’N{é1ga’~.aI1Ci I3{1iI’1fii’S represented by
‘A ‘ 2 .,mothc:1’,fi1atural guardian Smt.\/asaI1tha~
K ‘V V ‘ f 3. ‘ Shetty
are residénts of Keeiara Villagé,
Keragociu Piobli
% %'[Ap§gz1 am 1.
W 0″; Ifijttaswamy Shetty
* . Sfo.1ate Kempashetty.
Mandya Tq. & Dist. …Appe11ants
(By Sri K.L.Sreenivasa sha,AdV.)
AND:
1. Siddaraju
S / o. Chikkasiddaiah
Doddabanasavadi Village
Keragodu Village
Mandya ‘I’q. & Dist.
2. The New India Assuranoe ‘ . 1 A
2nd Cross, 1200, Ashok Nagara ‘ ‘
Marzdya, by its Ma11a§ger.é..o””’ — …Re;spo:1dents
(By Sri M.?;S:~eenr}as, for R1
Smt._Har1n1…S11iVa11,a:o,d:1;v,Aéhz,~ for R2)
T11is.1*»t¥o’ivsc:’E’i;7stv Apprqal .._i.s§fi1ed, under Sec. 17 3(1) of
MV Act 3aga.i:j.st “*-th4é”5′.’jJud,gme;1t and Awarci dated
3.11.2o0o5_ §ia$So{iV.iI1–._1ViV’C” NQ31339/2005 on the me of
the Add}.’DiSt.J1idgo”and MAC’?-II, Manclya, partly
ailowing = t11e”ziia,iin_ “ptétition for compensation and
seeking onharlootxient’ oi’ znmpensation.
-Thisflu .7’coinifi:g on for Admission this day,
, E3′.-;a;{;;.;_L’ GowdagV-.}.V_,___;;1¢i1verod the f(}110WiI1g:-
JUD Gflfll’
x children and parents of late Nagaraj @
Naga twho died in the accident wiaich occurred on
%:2*z;g2.:20o2, am before this Court in this appeal
questio:1i1*;g the oorreomess of the Judgment and Award
fiated 8.11.2005 in MVC 3339/05 passed by the
Add1.II)ist.Jucige and MAC’I’–II, Mandya, (in short ‘the
M/
Tribunal) partly allewiag the claim petition, Lufgiilg
varieus grounds.
2. There is no need for us to advertffe
in this case as the Tribunal haf’; le1£tbn_mte];3*_z1fe§fe1freéi
the sajne in its Judgmeni,
Contentious points I and II =
i. whether acci(le_flt’:e_ceu:jed ezi account of
rash and fiegligenfz. of the offending
vehicle by ‘
K. ‘ee1?;f;peI1é§a£i0;f1’:–“‘ ‘the appellants are
” l
Ii; “is the affirmative and
awardiedl’ ef Rs.2,70,(}O0/– towards
less ef dependef;g:yA:e51d..”~’Rs. 15,000/ – under conventional
V’ _ he:eiils;»_’§.i1 favotlfof-£:l”1e appellants.
T. ground of attack of the impugned
J’ that, the ‘I’ribm3al has not taken the legal
evidenee on record particularly the fact that éeeeased
an agieulturist and carrying an milk vending
ll .. lnusiness by ewrxing two cows. The fact that the
deceased was an agiculturist is established by
producing E)x.P-4 and PS the RTC copies in the name cf
mother of the deceased and he was in fact cultivating
m/
deceased was an agrieulturist and was doing.-____mi1k
vending business by owning twe cows. Therefere’;:’–.e$he
has stated that from all these avecatiens,
earning a sum of Rs.6,0G0
Further, the claim of the d_eeeas:ed::4′.ii.fes~.VV
doing agicxflture is fOI’tifi6{1w”k’3f and V’
PS, the RTC copies of the
mother of the deceased’ said fact. No
rebuttal owner not
to be1ief.fePW.}.— the Wife of the
deceaeed__ with regard to the
mentkfiéé Vv.§nee;ne the deceased. The tribunal
11as_§Iio£.take:i ~.t1ie evidence on record into consideration
R315′: ‘the vdrpmgvi-pose of determining just and reesonabie
favour of the appellants/claimants.
V –V deeumentary evidence Ex.P=e~ and PS, the
., ¥<"1"{3n eriiraet in respeei of the preperty, which steed in
name of mether of the deceased was being
2 hmerrltivated by the husband ef FW. .1. This evidence is not
accepted by the tribunal without assigxing proper
reasons fer net accepting the said evidence and it has
m/
9
laid ciown by the Supreme Court; in ‘I’riI0kchandra’s case
referred supra, it would come to Rs.3150/~(40I}_Q–_:850}
will be left to the family members. :1: has to
by 12 to compute the annual in_(_:om_¢ offlié ”
comes to Rs.37,800/ ~. Taking tiis; age
35 years, the appropriate ::i1,jiaipiief”tQ_ i:eVVéip§5ii§*:2L%w 15′; V L’
The resultant fig11re;000[:E towards
loss of depenciency of _
10. age of the first
on the date of filing
the mirlor children the
compéfxsfifidn’ ‘loss of love and affectioll’
is 1c§ss\,fI’he”c:)111pn awarded under other heads is
– Therefore, it Wouid be just and
wt(;.iénhance Rs. 1G,{}0O/- towards loss of love
arid a.fieCfidn for two chiidren, Rs.8,000/~ towards
f1.1.I;era3′ expez1sm, Another Rs.3,000/- towards loss of
atmther Rs.3,{)£3{}/~ anci Rs.’7,(}O0/- iowards
” ‘””dbs&qz_1ie$ ceremony. (Another Rs.50,0Q(}/– {awards
conventional heads in addition to Rs.15,000/~). Thus,
the iota} eompensation payable is Rs.E3,6’7,G0O/- plus
W12’
:0
Rs.6f:3,000/~.Thus the total compensation W0.§.fl<;i. be
Rs.6,32,0G{}/~ with interest a3; 6% from
petition till the date of deposit.
11. The appeal is é.V1i<'_§Ws:<i;_jTii';e.:_§f0.;,r1;§jé:3s;3»tioi1_
is enhancad from 2,85,()0{} to v"Th;=:':'§
is directed to draw the is
directed to deposit §1:14t:.«_ab¢3§E;_ mitt}
interest. at 6% 33.3. the date of receipt
of 3. copy of 2
12. ‘€i1;1Civ’v’§(lViVéE3l2I’S(‘3IflC}T1t of enharzced
shail be made with
the by the tribunal, in respect
of igtgfe “<:r;hez'4£iCé:c1:V'cf)1×1.'V1::re1.?satior; in this appeal.
. Saf-
Iudge
Saflfi
Iuége