IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGAEORE
DATED THIS THE 17"*nAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2§0S_
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEwK,L.HhfiJU§AfHfig =
Mm 2 . "
THE HON'BLE MRs.JUSTICE E§VfiNAGEEETE&§Sffi
M.F.A.No{if22 or 2006 g 5""
BETWEEN
1 BANGALORE METROPOLITAN '¥n."
TRANSPORT CORBQRATIOH " V _
K.H.RoAp,,sHENTHINAGAR, -~
BANGAL0fiET..'. S" x ""
EY§ITS.MA:EsINg*EIREcToa
REPEESEETED ET TTS ' j'
.cHTEE LAW OFFICER *»w7 ... APPELLANT
(Bs¥*.,%M*r= :% 'Ii ADV. )
AND
';j"JoHN VI¢ToR'MoNTEIRo
":5/O.MAXIM"MDNTEIRO
_ASEp ABOUT 47 YEARS
'72«"cEE:NE"JULIANA D'SOUZA
__ w/0 JOHN VICTOR MOTEIRO
" EGEE ABOUT 45 YEARS
mu,_3 "EASTER SUSHANTH MONTEIRO
S/O JOHN VICTOR MONTEIRO
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS ,MINOR, REPTD. BY HIS
FATHER
6.10.2005 PASSED IN Mv&gEo,3703/2003 Eon THE
FILE OF THE VI AnDL,sMAL;T¢AfiEEs JUDGE & MACT,
BANGALORE, (sccH~fiyI- AEEEDIEG COMPENSATION OF
RS. 4,00,000#+ WITH INTEEEET AT 7% P.A. FROM
THE DATE f0E}TEETITIoE pTIEi~ ITS DEPOSIT AND
DIRECTIEG THE EDPEEEANT EEREIN To DEPOSIT THE
THIS on FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, MANsUNATE1J;VDELIvERED THE FOLLOWING:
H '..- _ . . . . ..'V
'ufipérdifihe counsel for the parties.
hzé This appeal is by the B.M.T.C.
hppchéllenging the Judgment and award passed in
"'_h.v.c.No.3703/2003 dated 6"' October, 2005.
£@/
The respondent lodged a claim petition
claiming compensation on account of the death
of one Santhosh who died. in a road xtrafficifié
accident occurred on 31.10.2002 at ahout 80000:
a.m. while riding his motor cycle’bearing_h
No.KA 03 EB’ 1941 near :9a1ac’et 0C–‘uttaha.’i:lii’ sushi
stop on Sankey road, Bangaiore on sgcéfint of
the rash and néélig%n€in4¥;Vihgv0orv the
appellant’s bus bearincfi;ho¢gfi:fl01 F 421.
According to fthe;_cieimants;lJdeceased was
studying’ in 3fin§ine§£in§= College. He would
have completed the Engineering Course shortly.
The clairrianta. 0′ .fVi1ed:..’i’a claim petition under”
.gsection_0163A”*o£M.the Motor Vehicles Act,
V7contending%that his income has to be taken at
RsI¢0}000}¥fifconsidering the provision of
‘Section 1633. The Trial Court considering the
uincomeé of the deceased at Rs.40,000/– per
45, emonth has awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/– under
ulthe head, loss of dependency. In addition to
as/0
that a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded on the
conventional heads. Thus, in Wallh
Rs.4,00,000/– has been awarded 7£;§g;fg
compensation. Being aggrieved by”thegsame,p
the present appeal is filedtfi :”
3. The main contention of the appellants
before us is the claimants did not pro§e the
income of the deceased5V_atWxgRs.40,000/-.
Admittedly, the deoeased was osgy studying in
Engineerind §cligggt hand after completion of
his En§ih§éfi;n§§@s@;§e_hi§ income could not
have been less than Rs 15,000/~ per month. In
this View of the matter, we are of the opinion
l. that the Hciaim petition filed under sec.163A
;iot:’«V…vv’Vb:eneficial to the claimants and if
., jthey.had’tiled a petition under sec.166 of the
lwsfi.V. Act, they would have been awarded more
4l.oompensation than what has been awarded.
Rd=Therefore, we are of the View that the
,\_%/.
findings of the Trial Court in regard to the
income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/e, per
month cannot be stated to be on higher sidefipi
Further, we see that when a petition filed fore ‘
compensation under 1633; f”awardinglfi:Qff
Rs.40,000/– under conventionalfi headsf is Lon
higher side. As per Sqm%¢&;e¢IiLa§fi%¥%a sum
of Rs.4,5o0/– shag; ibgi éfiafded by the
Tribunal. 555$? ;gh§]jV§f?¥§g§5§;’ error is
committed _ibY:: the Iverisgagid Jin awarding
Rs.40,Q0O[¥ finder tfle conyentional heads, we
have from Rs . 40 , 000 /- to
4,500/w. we age if the view that the Tribunal
*»ahase7awardedl”aw_sgHa of Rs.35,500/– as excess
h1compensation¢_
uafgxfi the result, the appeal is allowedw
.pin4part. The compensation. awarded by’ the
‘1dTrihunal is reduced from Rs.4,00,000/– to
fig. .
6
Rs.3,64,S0O/M with interest at 6% per annum.,
The amount, if any in deposit shall hé g ,
transferred to the Tribunal.
-_ E%ifi%,fiW_V:
T.AA%jUDGE§