High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs K Nagarathnamma on 18 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs K Nagarathnamma on 18 June, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18"' my 0? JUNE 2008 

PRESENT

THE HON*BLE MRSJUSTICE MANJULA    

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTiCE K.r¢;kEseaA»rAN;Aé§Am§;A'~'  
MISCELLANEOUS FJRST APPEAL No.4

BETWEEN:

MIS THE NEW mam ASSURANCE Lao LTD
Missaow ROAE) L   ,  . ~  
BANGALORE 27 ' " , -       '.
BY DULY CONSTITUTEDAVATTORNEVY =    ; » 

    ...APPELLANT
(By Sri. K suR¥A.*siA:§Aw§;A..RA,..;;ay.)

1 K'-NAGARATHfiAMMA. 
WIGK N SFEANAKARE GOWBA
  NA 3?.-VYEARS   "
4; WA KALLANAYAKANAHALLI
"  HULEYARU 
KLJMLGAL TALUK

   VA ' N .Af>iJz§PP:A @ THAMMAJAH

' ~ s/o~Hor~aNAnAH

 Am §4--'YEARS
ms KALLANAYAKANAHALLI
HULEYARU POST.

A '  KUNIGAL TALUK

  JAYAMMA

D10 BORAUNGE GOWDA
NA 76 YEARS

FHA KALLANAYAKANAHALLI
HULIYARU POST,

KUNIGAL TALUK



4 S KUSHAL

810 K N SHANKAREGOWDA
NA 11 YEARS

RIA KALLANAYAKANAHALLE
HUUYARU POST,

KUMGAL TALUK

MINOR. RIBY MOTHER

K NAGARATHNAMMA

5 H A KERAN SIO H T 
MAJOR '
MANJUNATHA TRAVELS  %
No.13, ROHENI CQMPLEX.«««-- _  De _
HAS-SAN   5    , 

 ~  =_  ; ;;.EREs.PoNDENTs

(By Sri. RANGASWAMY & ASSTSV. ADVEFGR R;--~1--R3
RA minor represented byR;'1" --  "  1  
R5 sawed)    Z:  v '

THIS "M13-CiEiLUxNEOUS._F!RST APPEAL IS FILED UIS
173(1)~eox=e Pu&OTOR"f7v'E.Hi£;L-ES ACTAGAENST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD D.==;rEDeP2.1

compensation of Rs.9.10,000I- forxthe death of Shankare
Gowda as he met with fashfland negligent
driving of the driver of a priiiate 3–3443. On

the fateful_da$v’5on deceased Shankare Gowda was
standin§’2;y”the side waitin for the bus. At that time,

the driver above taroceeding from Bangalore to Hassan.

. i – drove the same in areal and negligent manner near Taiakere and

deceased. As a result, he sustained head

and shifted to NIMHANS where he succumbed to die

injufiesion 12.6.1995 at about 1.10 AM. i.e. within three hours after

” the “accident.

‘ 4. The claimants by placing reliance on the avocation of the

-~–‘deceased Shankare Gowda that he was employed in Srigandha

Kawal Junior College teaching Sericulture subjwt was paid a

consolidated salary of Rs.’l,890l- subject to enhancementgand he

would have got the said job being regularised and eavg

earned salary on par with UGC scaie.

death of deceased Shanicare Gowdalha”s’liet7tg_the:n.; iangiearki

any assistance either moral or financialvgg it

5. On perusal of the notice sogfar as the
rash and negiigent driviragef busla criminal case
was registered against meggdrieeri ‘and.afier investigation.
he was charge””;sheete_d V punishable under
Sections.27i9:.’V The claimant was not
the Encidenebut the Police records. especially the
spot panchainama’-at the fact of dte driver of me

bueéeoming to tne__e’xtrerrie left side of the road onto the kacha road

‘ and e~a.gainst”the deceased causing fatal injuries. Even

of the Tribunal need not be altered having

regard rnaterial i.e. die Police records that were placed

i before” the Tribunal.

” * 6.”l”hen ccrning to the question of quantum of compensation.

the date of his death. he was aged about 35 years and his

of em as per SSLC certificate was 10.9.1959. The

deceased had completed M.Sc degree in Botany and was teaching

Seriouiture subject as a temporary Lecturer on a consolidated

remuneration of Rs.1.890I-. PW.2 was examined to speak. the

detaiis of the work of the deceased and aiso the

to disciose the fact that in piece of deceased

someone else is recruited and whatiiisthe ‘aaieryi:paid,vvVto” the

subsequent Lecturer whose service v1vasi’r.ezguiarised”in=the\’year~,

2000.

‘2’. The evidence of rdeeumentary material on
record disclose th’e,t__ one”‘S’rini§ragaWlyurttiyziriiirlras recruited as a
temporary Lectureriiigiriplace deceased Shankare Gowda after the
death er snarlyke:er«..eieed<er'f'i'iir 1995. The said subject had so
studentsand poet"oi illlurthy has been made permanent

(reguiarised) 'tiielyearxfioeo. Ex.P.25 is produced to show that

.""eloVn'gV. Tisritrjivasafllililurtiiy, other Lecturers like Ravishankar,

Fytajeeheiraryyvand-liriamechandra were also appointed on permanent

basis. v_.~F?ari:uaohandra and Rajashekar were also teaching

"–Sericulture subject. 'i'he salary of these Lecturers after

"_Areg1ilarisation w.e.f. 1.11.2000 as per Ex.P.25 is 6000~i5G-7200»

it 2oom26o–1oeao.32o–112oo. By the time he retired from

'4 service, his Basic Pay would have been Rs.11,20G9!- apart from

DA, HRA and other perks. which were aliowed to his post.

8. The quesfion is, whether fine deceased Shanicare Gowda

would have earned the said salary of Rs.11,200I- as on ihe,:.ol’ate of

his retirement. The material on record amply {act

that in the normal course of events. this Shankarev:”€§ov¢r:la ibu’tl’fcr_

his untimely death would have been:v’regirlarise<_:l as perrrr'a'r3er%':

Lecturer like his colleagues Ravishankar__ar:r:izRamacharzdra; As la';

matter of fact, Srinivasa Murthy' %a.E'<er1_i'-n Vlihelllplace ofll

Shankare Gowda on temporaryybaséslalsoepamel «to"be"regularised
w.e.f, 1.11.2000. rherérege.'milgariaetisyrlassy sight of all the
prospects of vrleach'ihg the scale to pay
at Rs.11,2e3:§» re; °" the date 0' his
retirerriant, _rfega'r'c.l»_it"o-.these facts. the Tribunal as a matter
of fact Afeolr income at Rs.8.800I- and

calcriiatecl the loss 'of deperidency by applying the multiplier of 15.

– ‘~ éideduciingy the Tax and Professional Tax. the loss of

iarrivw at Rs.9.36,000I-. This was based on the

law..44:_laid’,-deartaiJby the Apex Court. which was in force as on

2002.

9. As a matter of fact. me Apex Court in the case of

H Jashuben and others vs.On’entaI Insurance Co., (2008) 4 sec 162

at paragraphs 26 and 27 has clarified the position as to how the

loss of dependency should be calculated if there is definite material