IN THE HIGH court? or KARNATAKéL», czacurr aenca AT DHARwA::>j . EIATEEI was me 14*" mm or '%'&V.'L"Y"':'VVV2.".m'a:'8r':..V PRESENT _ . THE HON'B1.E MR. JU$TI(2_E A THE HOWBLE MR. Jusificfs M1. .VEN_E}':GC> ¥'ALA csowm. 1 § .B§'Sus'h'aiéi'Qafn1§fia; ' ' "J W19 Eate -B.Mvai:!..ka rjunaiah, ' 'V _ Aged mu: 45 years, Tl/0 Nearvfingzeowa Hotet, ffiezsary-533101. w/o Jadaiah, Aged about 33 years, '52,/at Kampti, Near Apoorva Hotet, acar Street, " 'Be::ary«-533101. 3 $.$udha, 35 years, D/0 late B.B-iaflikaxjuna, Near Apoorva Hotel, Car Street, Bellary-583101. 4. 8.Mruthunjaya, 38 years, Sfo Manikarjuna, Near Apoorva Hetei, Car Street, Beliary--583101. 5. Smtfieetha, _ W/o Malfikatjuna, Agecf about 31 years, We Kottur, Kudiigi, Beliary-583135. 6. Nagaiatha, _ D/crate Ma!fikaIjuna1ah,.' ~ V ' Aged about 23 years," * R/o Near Apoorva ¥~iot'eL_ V V Car Street, _ - Be!fary~5£3,v3iQ_1'~. g A ' %%%% ...A9£3eHants (By sripasgshmiréégnt 'es: Y.Maaatm Raddy, Advs.,) 1.._':<?«:::,+~1<:§sai;era;"3";)a,-- ..... " , S,fo"sugla9pa, €3wn.er9-f. the Maxicab Ne.KA-35/2433, ~«.T-_B¢'ovv-Aféivgzurff.5efiary-583101. 2; 'T11e,.__Nev§«:'~'Ihdia Assurance Company Limited, Branch Manager, by its DMDO, Tfleaivcourt Compiex, LL Eeilary-583101. ...Respondents
% (Sr: J.M.Umesh Murthy for R1;
Sri Angadi Associatw for R2)
This Misceiianeous First Appeal is filed under.’-Eiection
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgrnen’t._and
award dated 19.1.2005 passed in MVC No.851/2f)00.’o«n”t_he
file of the Member, partly allowing the t:lei:rj””petji~ti..on;_.fer
compensation and seeking enhancement of cornpensatiorr.
This appeai coming on,-“€or–.,hesarin§,.’Vl’,this’..T.day,u’
VENUGOPALA sowm 3., delivered the fFoii.owi,n’§:’ 7
JuosMEN?_ w:tVN
Appeilants were the civeiijfnantsh on V
the file of MACT~a_t am.-y.tt,eli.,myea claimed
compensation on accoont’ of j¢.:jv”e*’_B.!*iiallii<arjunaiah
in a *n'zoto_Ar1A'vehi.cl:e.'acc.i'dé_i3'!T. took place on 24.4.2003
at 7 neer'*l:.'To:_ra.nVa'g'ar on Tornagal Beilary road,
inyfol~s.«i,ng ureotor'{teh'i'cle maxi cab bearing No.KA«–35/2433.
Eclligigfg'-,..pavinvew'been contested by the respondents,
iseijesifwpere-.framed and after enquiry, the tribunal has
Aaitowed petition in part, awarding compensation of
.. Rs.i,'5i3,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
it fpetition til! the date of payment. Dissatisfied with the
amount awarded, claiming enhancement, this appeal has
been preferred.
Z.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appetblants
and perused the record. .
3. Sri Y.Lakshrnikant Reddy, learned
appeilants contended the: the deceased _–we’s”a_jvco’ntraVci:oVr’
by profession end was earn§ngv”aAt§eastV
and hence the tribunai has”é.f1*ed inhot tak’E’5A9\~~.iti1–e..incorhe.i”
of the deceased in tenfns of Learned
counset contended erred in taking
the :in’cotne’:i:,of’V”:ithe:”‘de<:eased"'"at Rs.50/- per day or
Rs.1,§00)'~.-'_ therefrom 1/3"' towards
seat. 3: i's"'~the cqnteygtactn of the teamed counset that the
..r.hadAAV'a'v'e–%g'famiiy and hence, the unit system
'heed adopted in assessing the loss of
tagpéna§a:y Learned counset further contended that the
trihunvzvdhas faited to notice that the deceased had survived
A xfor"~3 days and that the ctaimants have incurred expensm
towards his treatment, conveyance and other related
expenses.
‘y:
4. We do not find any materiai to
come to the conctusion that thie”‘a’et:e3-Qsed.teJevs’aV’contfa&ctor
by profession and that he waslihieathino It J
£5 net in dispute that, Vthe:”deceased’ was about”60
years. He appearedto he”-awV:.s_i<il'led.'wofker.aVnd as such his
income has to ,t'alce;-,3.Vgathlieavstfi.vRs.8G/–~ per day or
Rs.2,400[e..p;5m. 1/3"' of his income
towa:-as' selrena lzaye conttibuted 2/3"' thereof to
;b"l"h.;I..-*-s the::loes"efdependency of the family per
month pm. or Rs.19,200/- p.a.
Consivderlug VVth_e'a§e:."of the deceased and in terms of the
o'f"t'hi.s._.Court in the case of GULAM KHADER AND
t.Aixaofi'Heelvs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE conpnnv
the ANOTHER reported in ILR zooo Karnataka,
.u"44iv5;,'Vt'he muttlplier applicable is 'IO'. Thus the loss of
' oiatgiepenaency to the family is Rs.1,92,000/-. In addition to
the said amount, the agpellants are also entitied to be
awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/– being the expenses incurred
for obtaining treatment to the deceased, conveyance and
other related expenses, l! the date of his death. Though
/.
presentation of the c£aim petition tfil thedetEV.ofVA./.pe.y:fiehtA\’
by the 2″” respondent Ir:surance’;:’CZor:rtpafj:1″}’:, viiihiecih’ T
fixed with the liabiiity by the t_ribui1a_h*–
In the resu§t, the -..-gfppeai “is__ ‘alV$owét§v”””‘in parth
Impugned award is modifiegh V:.1fhe’*»appeli’ants ate entitled
to an award of enhaneeeAof_Rs.77,o00/– with
interest at vfeetriondent Insurance
Company, sh’ell ngetim award amount with
interest in a period of three months
from today;’ _ ”
V’ 2..R<eg'§stry difetted to draw modified award.
Sd/-
Judge
Sd/-g_
( 2; 9 L
Ksj/~