N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 15?” DAY 05-” JULY, “; H
: PRESENT:
‘rue Howaus MR. Jusrncesm. V k
ANS
me HOWBLE MR. .susncE% n.%m:.m=A 1
M.F.A.No.s7e*2Q::_2og4 (Mu;
BETWEEN:
1
F3
Cs}
AKTHAR BEGAUM ._ V% _V
ssvams,
wso LATE AREFF @ AR£FUi’.LA . _ V
SHARRTF 1 a
mo KARlG.0’e’€DANAK»DPPALU KQWr.’$§%%KA
HAssAN.; ;~_V. « =_ _A. ‘ ”
F:_EENA_KAi..!$ER _ ;
MAJOR, we Asafi-fTA;@—At:<:Fuu_A
SHARWF "
RIO :<ARmowaAN.axoPPALu KQWSHMA
Hassma – V
. SALMA Kaissaa _
V. 'AGETD1–? mans," """ "
Di(3.La3tTE’ ARIFF Q ARIFULLA
s:4.Am:=’F. ‘
1:29 “KARiG0sA?DANAKOPPALU xowsazxa
‘ –..;HAmA:~.:.
.. vL_:;’;u.=s.:a;LA SHARIFF @ vusurrr
’36 YEARS, €40 LATE ARSFF @ AFRFULLA
SHERIFF
RIO KARIGGNDANAKOPPALU KOWSHIKA
V KHASSAN,
voussusunm SHARIFF @ mums
15 YEARS, SIC} LATE ARFF Q AWFULLA
SHARE-‘~’
RIG KARiG$Ni3ANAKOPF’ALU KOW$HiKA
E-lA$SAN,
6 AMEER SAB @ ABDUL SHARIFF
68 YEARS, SIG MI-ZERA SHARSFF
RIO KARIGOWDANAKOPPALU KOWSI-RKA
HASSAN,
‘: MEKARUNNISSA __ , V V
53 was, we) AMBER SAB @ Aaautss-LARK-*:-=
mo KARIGOWDANAKOPPALU Kowsnw. ‘
HASSAN, “T A. -T
. ‘ ‘ ” Ar?:=¥£i:;,;.ké,§§5rs u
(By Sri ; K v NARASIMHAN . Aovocaféza: » ‘ ‘ ‘
ANS: VV
1 MARIYAKUTTY ‘ _ .
WIOMPKARIYAKOSE — V i
mmea ANM PAUNDNI-AND 905-‘:
BELTHANGADIEK
owreereor M.§;HiNDRAJEEP
NOKA_21Mu43§4_-.’_ ~ ” ~, .
2 JGSEPH K:mnm;Am’Ew—.
we Mam:-fw _ —
mATH:–:ww’oARpE§. ‘
NELLUR. KEARAJE
SULQYADK ,
owNaP:_oF.MAH:NL*RA’JEE:=
_-.KA21M=i3.;84’~* ‘-
‘~ _ 3 UMlTEDAI’NDiA–~:NSURANCE Co LTD
. ‘ BRANCHOFFICE
.. PUTTUR .,
‘ REi~’?._B’v’ enafim MANAGER
_ _ . _ RESP”-‘ONDENTS
(By 5}: : arixaéuwaseaa, ADVOCATE FOR R1 ;
~ M : .- ‘ GANGAGHAR SANGOLLI. ADVOCATE FOR R3;
‘ ‘ A ” ‘R2 .T saavam
hiifi
T1433 MFA £8 FILED U38 ‘!?3{‘!} GF NW ACT AGNNST THE
V ‘*’J{}DGMENT AND AWARD DATE-‘.D:22.6.94 PASE-EED IN MVC N0.2022fl31 {OLD
N0.M.V.C.665i01} ON THE FSLE CF THE ABEL CIWL JUDGE {SRDN} AND
ADDL. MAST, Hassm, F->ARTLY ALLOWING THE CLASM PETtT!€3 §fFOR
compeusanon AND seems ENHANCEMENT 0.: coMPENsAT:QN«;.._ _
mes MFA comma on ma HEARM; THIS DAY, _r3_:;i'<; '#57-eji,f' ;3.__,
DELWERED THE FOLLOWING: ' _
JUDGMEfiIfl
This appeal arises out of
dated 26"' June 2004 '(am A
mess/2001) on the fiig c:f..iti*1:;;ig*=.§é':*:1fled Acmaaha: Civil
Judge (Senior Division) any;%Agwns¢¢ai%T%L%kM.A.c.T. Hassan
('ciairns Trib:sné;!f%:i1'for*::A.1br駣§fy)';«.x§$§§i-tfigifiround that, the
appeiijsxrités' 1e1é§ié'nr:%ment of compensation
under {£3 and 'loas of estate'.
5 2. _ Tfié kcase are mat, one Sri. Ariff @
. V. the accident that occurred on 11"
xéiffin he was have-filing in a Mahindm Jeep
_ beéring-._'NcL ¥(Fs-211M-4384 along wiflm his friend by name
.. at about 3 PM an B.M.I-'wad near
(1'–'h i'kl-ianayakana Haiti within the iimits of Rural Police
% méptafion, Saklashpura. gm said jaep was driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent mannar wifl'ioutg»"'g–iving
importance to safety and dashed against the
side {rm as a result of which, the K
grievous injuries to his head
was shifted to the Hospflgl
succumbed to the injuries iiiaimams
appellants as the iegaVi;::y.;"¢':;,pj¢f§.,'–'¢': have filed ihe
ciaim petition lakhs
with interesitfi of death cf
sn'.Anruiaasha§:ri; petition had come up
before 22'" June 2004 and the
exam. TfiBu.naE,VV:aftéi*._i'fi*ifi§rough evaiuation en' the entire
_reci57rti""'and after considering the oral and
éfiiierice and ether materiai on file, taking
fiwe status cf flue deceased and the
:;qu;ce" income, has awarded in aii, a sum of
4 VA with intarmt at 6% per annum from the date
':'_4:"af««i3etition till the date of reaiizatien. The appellants are
/nw
before this court we the ground that, the oonzperissation
awarded under the heads loss of
estate are inadequate.
3. The submission of
appellants at the outset is that?
erred in taking the age’ of the solely
on the basis of the fi:i=:’:l§:fi:rV’ve:t_vappallant in the
cross examinati;n__ lplzlfiéllllaged 45 years
at file wfimmed that in the
claim Morten: report, the
age “as 38 years and therefore,
the C’lain1§*–.4TribtV;x::f;;afi’l ie have talcem the age of the
v as 33″yea:’sh1stead cl’ 45 years. Furfiwer, in the
fiae age of me daceased is specifically
years. Therefore, if we age of the
is taken as 38 yaars, then, me appropriate
‘ Féf;’:aslt’.ii,’;5siia’ would be ’15’. Furfiwar, he submitted that, the
..’u.1éaI11e of the deceased ought to have been taken at
%”‘———~=–«
Rs.-4,00Dl~ per mound”: instead of Rs.3,000l– par rimnm.
Accordingiy, the impugned judgment and awardé.’
ta be modified and the appellants .,
enhancement of cmrpensatiidn ;
dependency. _ V a
4. Further, he
towards loss of jand avpeuants
are entitied tp’ some of fime
appelianisi. V iddtireiy dependent.
Therefcrm, fioempensation needs to
be disc-
mafia, Vie-arned counsel for Insurance
inter x§£T¥éi’,”‘t$ontended and submitted that, the
and award passed by the Claims
TrAitsa.’v1na,!;’i;§. and pmper and interference by flxis Court
‘abie since the same is dad after
the oral and documentary avidence and otha
/4%
matmial available on file and also on fine basigs
admission by the first appeilant in her cross
6. After hearing the learnedbpwrasei’ ~
and after careful perusal of th e; jtgaggnéni *
passed by the Ciaims Tfihfifiai. :on.IyV
arise for our considerafion _
Whether the ATii!:fii:jaI.::’A’V5$A~justifed in
awarding _.a~,z:_propfi’a{éj”: ta wards
{ass of iésfate ?
original records made
availablé’, age of the deceased is
shoygh as 33% margin tn; ciaim petition filed by claimants
2001 as wen as in the Ratian Card
Tribunai ought ta have taken the
V flue deceaaed as 38 years instead of 45
. the basis of the mere wmissior: made by first
a@mI§am in her cross examinatian, contrary to: the
, reievant ctinching documentary evidence availabie an
record. Therefare, there was no justificatktan fqf fine
Claims Tribunai for taking flue age of
years at the time of accident. Therefore,
canside.-red opinion that it is wouid’A’b’e’ to
take we age of the
accident on me basis of V
available on rmci afixafivriculturist
by profession and to the whole
sate deazeafs, that true
mmwfir around Rs.50,Gm to
an income of Rs.10,00GI-
per have not produced any
mph tax remrns in support af me
‘V: View the occupation of ma
_ as the records mat the decaasad W33 an
‘ cum busmm2=zm’ an and sum am dining miik
busznm, we deem it just and prom ta me the
{ k.cm of the deceased at Rs.4,000l- per nmmth and er
/«.1,
w
Rs¢1,mOI- is deducted frcm the same
personal expenses having ragard to the _
dependents, flue income per montfi ‘~
and using the appropriate
Rs.5,4o,eco;- (i.e.3,000x12kV1S}.,V_ Aofim-di%hg@Iy%;«?J&v¢e% hoid
that the appellants ate, –a’su_m R$.5E40,000I–
towards loss of depen§1;en¢;« Rs.3,12,000l-
awarded by ..
7. he Tribuna! has
into consideration flue
and having regard to the
we :a:nd proper to award addifional
of estate to maet fire ends of
3.j}n1iae light of flue facts am circumstances of the
A as stated above, the appeal rm by appellants is
g;;¢u2§d in pan.
10
The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Claims Tribunal dated 22″” June in
M.V_C.No.2022I2001 (ow No.665l2001) is
awarding a sum of Rs.5,40,mO!- srnf ” =
towards loss of dependencyi’-._
Rs.2,28,000I-) and a sumV__vb{ Rs;1¢,am:~£m:eaa dfdri’
Rs.5,000l- (enhancemgnt ‘R_s;’5,00.0I’-‘fr loss
of estate with interat ‘ ‘a”it “pg: annum frdm
the date of till €15;dd§:.edd¢rd%drea%tazaa;¢n.
is directed to
a period of eight weeks
fro:nA.tc>da)’fl”~~ V. A
Q of. tl1e”1Vérihéhced amount with accrued interest,
be deposited in the Fixed Deposit for a
péfind years in any Nationaiizedlscheduled Bank
‘ H ” ‘T to draw quartaiy interest.
/Znwwd.
Sa far was the commnsation awardw under athferj.
heads is concerned, fime same are just and _
does not cam for interference.
Draw up the award accordingly.7.__ 3
1
BMW
