Smt Bramaramba W/O Late G C … vs The General Manager M/S The New … on 10 September, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA®QRE

DATED THIS THE 10" DAY OF SEPTMBE§; EQ09%Jfl

PRESENT,m_

THE HON'BLE M.JUSTICE&K@L{MANJUfifiTH5, T 
THE HON'BLE MRs.JUSTICE B;V.NAGARATHNA

M.F.A fio.10ed6 or 2do6._A_?

BETWEEN:

1. Smt. Bramhramba," 

S/o laté GgC-Shivakufia%&iah;
A1ias"GLC}Sh;vakgmar;Vg

    

2. SriVNaveefi}:. 't~ ;
S/o lgte G,C;Sh;yakumara1ah
.Alias'G,C¢Shivakumar,

.fiAgéd abbut 26 years

~:3wuSfi1}S;V13ayakumar,

_,'S[a iate G.C.Sh1vakumara1ah
ZHAl1as G C.Sh1vakumar,

"_VAggdV§bbut 22 years,

Al1"afe residing at No.440,

. n3"'Cfoss, flm Main,
".Attur Layout, ye1ahankar(H),

'.Bahga1ore-64.

.Appellants

(By' M/s.M.R.Nanjunda Gowda & Associates for
appellants)

(K.



AND:

1. The General Manager,
M/s.The New India
Assurance Company Ltd.,
No.33/A, 2"'Floor, .~w-
1" Stage, P.B.No.3883,[
Indiranagar, Bangalore "

2. Sri Venkateshappa, Adfilt
S/o Venkataramanappa,A_
No.13, Murugesh,Palya,p<'
Cauvery Nagar,,fiAL;_ 'V
Bangalore--37. 'V"'

'f,[:gIRespondents

(By Sri.Mf$apayanappa for R:)~~

Ehis MEK is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act
against the Jimj1gment»«.end award dated 28.3.2006
passed in MVC.Nc,14C2/O5 on the file of the XI
Addie Judge, Member MACT, Metropolitan Area,
Bangalore (sccg,;2), partly allowing the claim

l'petitionk, for compensation and seeking
',ehhanoement of compensation.

' fats ?hPPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DEX, MARJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMNT

In View of the Memo filed by the counsel

for the appellant, notice to respondentuz is

dispensed with.

av



2. By consent of parties, the appeal is

heard on merits.

3. The appellants were claimants in Mflé lg

No.1402/05 before the M;A.c.:=:....pi.e.;..ge1e:ei,e.

which petition was lodged xhy_ them tclaiming*l

compensation on account'=  the ._  of one
G.C. Shivakumaraiah, fehef died in ia road
traffic accident occurred on 23.12.2005. He

was aged about 50 years and was working in

Acconntant Genera1{s Office, in Bangalore. At
the time of accident. he was drawing a salary

of_éRs.9,123[e per month. The Tribunal

.considering the net salary of him at

uRg}4.3§i[e "per month and considering the

future prospectus held that his income has to

xdif be tahen as Rs.13,173/m per month and 50% has

ate he taken as the salary for the purpose of

Vmcomputing the compensation and the same was

arrived. at Rs.6,586/*- per- month and. out of

which 1/3 has been deducted towards the

fv"



personal expenses and considering that he wash

aged about 50 years by applying the fiultiplier.Vi

of 12, awarded a compensation of Rsfl5;79fi5§O(§

towards loss of dependency and while conputingi;

considering his length cf service fgr a period
of 10_Years, combensationii5l§3lculated based
on the loss of dependency at as 4,391/u per
month and tor the renainifid two years, 1/2 of
the "saga. has Lbeéflf eaten? into account and
thereafter awarded the compensation under the
conventional heads and a total compensation of

Rs§§s34,60b%§v is awarded. Out of which

';Rs,3Q;QOfif~_ is awarded towards the medical

'e£penses,@d3 Being not satisfied with the

quantumdfi of compensation awarded by the

id: Tribunal, the present appeal is filed.

4. The main contention of the appellants

counsel before us is that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance

with the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8%



The learned counsel for the appellants £e;§;ng_

upon the Judgment of the Supreme pgogrt Vinyl-

SARLA vsauzvs case contend"  

should have taken into account ,the° actual"g

salary, the gross salary of the deceased and
thereafter 30% 'shouldwQfi%Y¥rnbeefii included
towards future p;§sp§§£egj agr he was a
permanent ésplsggg of the s£a£e Government and
thereafter fhby ";§§iyine} wthe appropriate
multiplierp sf y13}:WEompensation should have
been afiarded]_xKyiherefore, he requests the

Court to reconsider the matter and allow the

'5;.72¢:" contra, the learned. counsel for

the respondent--Insurance Company contends the

'"~trialH court is justified in awarding the

eofipensation based on the take home salary and

'he also contends that after considering the

take home salary, the same is doubled by the

"Tribunal in order to compute the compensation

(Lv/



considering the future prospects. Ther¢£§:é,¥.

he request the court to dismiss the appeal}, b

6. Having heard the _counSel tfor:,§hei

parties, the only point that arises for our i;

consideration in this   the
compensation awarded'hp the flrihunal is just
and proper a and w~doese$ it plrequire any
enhancementiuiivi . i . V'. "l

7: ____ _hfter§Eheari%gip%heVlparties and on
perusipg,ot the order, we are of the opinion

that theg_Tribuna.1:.' .-hasééinot followed the ruling

__ of thezsupreme Court in SARLA VERMA's case.

3 .13 we consider the case of the parties based

i¢n",;hé7?zuiihg of the Apex Court in SARLA

r VERHA"s case, we have to consider the income

'"o].¢f=,;hé deceased at Rs.ll,700/-- per month.

t Considering his gross salary as Rs.9,000/-- per

Vmfionth on the date of the death and adding 30%

of the same towards future prospects, out of

Rs.1l,700/~ per month, we are inclined to

ex



deduct a sum of Rs.700/~ towards professional

tax and income tax, if any. Thereioréfi the _

net salary of the deceasedmhas 

into account for the purpose oi computing tfie

compensation at Rs.1£yQQO/eF.tar flnonthH}and,l

Rs.1,32,000/* p.ar oug fig which, we have to
deduct l/3 towards his personal expenses. If
we deduct has.44;050{¥t_;p:a;y#5towards the
personal _d%§fiensesy:3qth%§d actual loss of
 .w§;z1d be Rs.88,000/--~.
Considering as he was aged about 50 years, we

have to afiplydnultiplier of 13 since he was in

ia,securedZjob as he could have attained the

"'a._ge__Vof:'«V...gu};$erannuation at the age of 60, we

hare to afiply multiplier of 10 considering the

hlfi annual loss of dependency at Rs.88,000/~. But

it we" apply multiplier of 10, it would be

du"Rs,8,80,000/". In addition to that for the

remaining 13 nmltiplier, half' of the annual

dependency has to be reduced on account of his

«V



superannuation. By doing so, for the remainin§_

3 multiplier compensation has to be awarded at§_i%

Rs.1,32,000/--. Thus, in all the claimants arew

entitled for a sum of Rs.,_10,l.2,"000/e..".'ul;!dér

head of loss of dependency} _

3. The Tribunal p  Rage, 000/-
towards medifihl 9K?§fl€es,i fihidhtlwe are not
inclined _toi¢enhahce,d:ppfiherefore, the said
amount """ "of ifi§:§C,6dfii§l is" confirmed. In
addition to that the.claimants are entitled

for gaplsum-t{¢f"adR$.4o,coo/-- under the

confientional "heads. Thus in all, the

,claimants", are entitled for a total

i"¢5epahéag1§nf of IRs.l0,82,000/-- with interest

as"-5%  

9} In the result, the appeal is allowed-

lin+part. The compensation awarded by the

uflhfribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,34,600/-- to

Rs.10,82,000/--. The enhanced compensation

shall carry interest at 6% p.a. Considering

63/



that the appellants--2 and 3 were 

the date of the accident, out of 

compensation, 60% of the s;ame.,_<p«i:a

to the 1" appellant--w.idow Shi3raVk1.itnara':iahV."Vi

and the remaining 40%  VBe.'«_VV:appo:;tioned
equally between   Out of
the apportioned  of the
apportion.ed--_.:v  in fixed
deposit" of the appellants
for a period   _  they are
entitled to drawpjlthel  interest. The
re'"§'inin9.«\%:p§~he1mt'~V  'the'... released to the

  .