MfA.NO.953£.2G08 _ 1 I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF' AUGUST, 2009 PRESENT A 4' 3 th THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K.L.:: AND THE HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE I3.V.7NAGARATrINA " M.F.A.NO.é5S"I.,z2oO8 BETWEEN: V' ' ORIENTAL INSURANCE COLTD " f_ _ REGIONAL OFFICE '- _ j LEO SHOPFING COMPLEX ' 44/45, R;5:s1'DENC=Y ROAD' = . .. .APPELLANT (By Sri 7:,_A N ADV.) AND: ' ' V " N J 1 "RADEY .. " 'S/O, LATE SU'RE3-NDRA CHANDRA DEY 'W/O S--.R»DEY "-..AGE:'4~9«--*YRS '.;~.'3" V I SUDHIR KUMARJALAN » ' S/O K.A.JALAN * _PROP:SURFACE TRANSPOR CORPORATION VEENAKRISHNA KODIAL BAIL GUTHU (EAST), IvI.G.ROAD, MANGALORE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: R KRISHNA REDDY, ADV. F OR R1 & R2)
fin
MfA.NO.9§31.2008
uaa4A2u4n4
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.06.2008 PASSED IN
MVC NO.193/2008 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, VNLACT,
BANGALORE, SCCH-20, AWARDING A coMPENsATIQi\1″,jQF..,
RS.33,49,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% PA. I_?R’O1\.«4Ij_~
DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
This MFA coming on for I
NAGARATI-INA J, deiivered the f011o\~Ei11g::-_,,, ‘ A; «
Juneggfijfiw
Though this matter is for the
consent of learned counseI”Qn aptgvnealtivvis heard
finally.
2. by’._HIti”ie insurance company
ehallengixrig’ the compensation awarded in
§\/FVC.NO,193/QCIO8. by Bangaiore by its Judgment and
” Awartidajted ”
of convenience the parties shall be
I _ referred to: in terms of their status before the Tribunai.
-“fire eiaimants filed the eiaim petition seeking
I csiiipensation in respect of the death of one Sudeep Dey on
” 7.11.2007 at about 9.30p.m when he was proceeding on Oid
Madras Road on a motor cycle bearing No.KAv-O4 EG–8244,
Q
/”
mEA.No.9S31 .2608
driver of a lorry bearing No.KA–19/B–359l was driven in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against th.eLh4iri::l
portion of the motor cycle. As a result of which _
sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted lpviatni-pal’
Hospital for treatment. On 30.11.2007 f
said injuries. His parents fileld-the claim petiti’o’n.Vseek:ingt
compensation for the death of theirsoni 3
5. After receipt of notice fr0n’1″‘ti1e’*T1’ib_unal, o’wne’r of the
vehicle did not contest the _ma;tite:r placed exparte
while the appeliant/’inst:-grandee.l:company: appeared and filed
its written statement ‘denying ithewallegations made in the
claim petition and »di.s1nissal.
V. support oi”thi_eirvcase claimants examined PWs.i 8: 2
got._ginarllied_ Ex.P1 to P59, while the respondent
insurance did not let in any evidence except getting
‘Va copv rgfthelilnsurance policy marked as EX:.Ri.
AA _ On;».the basis of the material on record, the Tribunal
aiafarded compensation of Rs.33,49,000/»~ with interest at 9%
ll Vuyfaf from the date of petition till reaiizaiion. Being aggrieved
25.
4′-
9&£A.No.953’1.’20<)S§
by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the insurance company has preferred this appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for ‘
and the learned counsel for the respondeentp.
9. It is contended on behalf of the :insurance
that in the instant case deceasedwas a-Bachelovrlaiid.,1}e131ce
50% of the income of the deceased -bought «.to’ha{ze been
deducted towards the 1 However, the
Tribunal has deducted 1/Siéof the said’ He further
submitsvVlllthlati’» ought to have awarded 6%
interest of.on..t:he4lcompensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
learned counsel for the respondent
subrnits linelthe instant case the award made on the head
lxof med1~calg_and incidental charges are on the lower side and
A the award made on the conventional heads are also
meager and hence the appeal does not call for any
ll” interference at the hands of this court. £44
mEA.N’o.?S3’1.2%O8
11. Having heard the counsel on both sides, the oniy point
that arise for our consideration is as to whether thevpaiyard
made by the Tribunal calls for any m0dificati_c§n”‘in”~…this__r
appeal.
12. From the material on record itiis ‘estabiished’ithatthe
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,83_, 280/«– as..h1*soV”
income considering the fact that-Jhe..pwasV”ae of
the said amount ought t,o..haVe.r-‘seen dcducted”towards the
personal expenses of the ‘deceased5V1§;eepingV:in’mind the fact
that the claimants’ are xiitkccordingly, by
taking 5:05/o’Vof’s1%it1:.V.:and the multiplier of 13
in View jiétpex Court in Sarala Varrna’s
case co_n1pens’ationo’n tnethead of loss of dependency has to
* be assessed at Rs.§4′,’83;500/– instead of Rs.30.66,000/- We
;:the award made on the head of medical
expenses as’ia’\j_/’:=r.}:”i’ as attendants and conveyance charges are
‘on the. tower side and hence on the said heads the
A ‘flconipensation is enhanced to Rs.2,60,000/– instead of
._ot.7Rs’.§2,4’cA8,0O0/– and the compensation awarded on the
“ficonventional heads is retained. Hence the total
compensation wouid now be Rs.27,90,000/– instead of
It
,4.
in to theV’I’r’1b”unaI.
Mb!-‘1.NO.’JUD;L..¢£UUU
Rs.33,49,000/-. The interest on the said amount would be
at 6% p.a from the date of ciaim petition til} realization.
13. Out of the compensation now assessed, it shaio’1:”‘1*)e
equaliy apportioned between the respondents. 509/:>.’f
amount shall be deposited in the name of ‘S_§:co1id’
respondent–rnother of the deceased in anyNation:aEized_ Bank
for an initial period of five years »5:r’1tit1p’e(i.:V”
draw periodical interest. The balance be
released to the respondents 1 Thehappellant is
granted six Weeks to deposit the nentisre conipensation.
14. For the the appeal is allowed in
part. statfifovry depositdnbéore this court is directed to
:3
Sd/– 2
IUDGE
Sd/-
HJDGE