THIS MFA IS FILED WS 173 or MV ACT AGAINST*'.::'THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.12.2004 PASSED 'iN'~._MV{2A
NOA25/2000 ON THE FILE OF Tflfi ADDLDISTRXCT &«v"E§E$SIONS'
JUDGE & ADDLMACT, 8IDAR, PARTLY ALLOWING ..A"='F;'HE,A
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENif{A.I'§CEME3:*£T'_ OFW
COMPENSATION WITH INTEEST AT 9% PA. _~
THIS APPEAL comm; on FOR 'Hum HEAaJftm;VTajs«§.ppa¥, we * T'
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: p
This appeal is directedhhéhapainét. and award
dated 23"' Decembat,..§rJ;)4 mfVp;é;daai§sor;:~.1%% Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal,
2.. The <t:as§e"avrav'ihat in the read traffic
accident on 7:*'*ic--;to$§%;'ip2§caV%«':-garflared Hope: in Bldar, one Sri
Laxman received"fafa!. on the spot. In the claim
patitipn '*--his______pvarents, the Tribunal granted the
co?r:pen$'ation..pf.R~.§V;i,§4,00O/~. Its break---up is as fonows:
._ _ Partlculars mm)
1. Loss. of hzpncakne 1,s2,ooo.oo
2. ' V V V E-'uneralv expenses 2,000.00
'4 W.-....;.,.
Totai 1,645,000.00
teamed counsel, Sri Kallegowda appearing for Sri
Patil, for the appellant bmits that the awarding of
amounts is on the lower side. Srl A.M. Venkatesh, the
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits
taking the age of the younger of the tvtto pa’rent4s,.._.the’-Trilzieneiti
has taken the ace of the deceasecl’_fer_ the’ptirposeviiofljtshooosind
the multiplier. The relevant n1uitiplier”virou.l§! 14 and
not 18, as taken by the Trlbunel submits
that In the wake of the.1latestA’:Vl?i.on’ble Supreme
Court in the case co. L113. v.
KUSUM RA! in :oosto.t 1335, the second
respondent is.’ ‘not liable to pay the
compensation. ” 4′
IV_~§’.lno_i”thatilitaklngvof the deceased’s income to be
RsA.}E._._V50:o’/~~.,pe.r_rnontlt is on the lower side. Considering that he
:¥”,_yras tkendlng business and was also working as a
VV”‘watchmen;”Izdeernit necessary to take his income as Rs.2,4o0/-
;o[eiri”mrontla.u in that, 50% has to be deducted towards the
“‘*-“‘_pVerst::ne-1expenses of the deceased, as he ls not married.
T .5.«}Aithough the second respondent has not filed the
I am of the considered View that the multiplier wrongly
#5!-%.
4
chosen by the Tribunal has to be corrected ln exercise…of…’th.e
powers conferred on the Appellate Court under Order.4:i”Re’ie:
of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appllcehle multi’p?ler_»!s”‘3.4;as: ll ” ~
the age of the younger of the parents of th;edeoea_sed;-
the appellant No.2, is 38. Now thle’«..amoV{m.ts payraitilgvitotyairds
loss of dependency are to be worked .followsi I E
Rs.1,200/– x 12t;.4 =’.ljns:n:-?§G~1;~e’oo.oo
6. I also noticer.}:(v§t_h has not
awarded any -…the flllal love and
affection. Ivsoawartiafth;e:;;.{s_ueo:’ ‘¥+:’s…V1V5,}O00/~ to each of the
parents. any amounts towards
the transportlnotof the the accident spot to the
hospital fo:€_oost~morter.h thereafter from the hospital to his
res’i’den¢e.. sum of Rs.2,000/- under the said head.
‘.’v».L?_Towar:ds:”l.t.h’eV”‘ expenses the Tribunal has awarded
‘.;g.s.2s,ooo/9″; xrgsselrlo Rs.S,.O0O/-.
the modified award reads as follows:
£5.34