High Court Karnataka High Court

Chandrakant Bharamoji Bhandagi vs Vazira on 12 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Chandrakant Bharamoji Bhandagi vs Vazira on 12 August, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CERCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATES THIS THE 12"' DAY OF AUGUST 2c2§:--sf ' '    

PRESENT

THE HUMBLE MRS.JUST1CE MA.NJL}Lr'*~. c:3E:_;L{;: «2.%%   

AND

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTSCE K'.M_,_i$ESH;§'§'Ah§AFx(§Y£.¥§l}§  V

MFA No,66?9I2'0§3{MV)  

BETWEEN:

1.

1.

Sri.Chandrakant8?1aramoji Bhandagi;  " 
Ma§or,No.710l5,   *_
Angezlffioaci. _ _  1.     _
Near MarathaV£3vchc;}o'|,__. .     
Angel, Be!gs'aum,_'=.     "  '

New India As§ur;a.n¢e?.Ccrnp~a_ny L26,
Rep. byiflepubf Mafiag*e..r,   '
Pxaiénga Rae Raod;  V.  " 
Bangafore'-'247;A V " _ 2  

__  V ~. = ...APPELLANTS

 'V "(E3y Sa*'i. 'B*.(:_,--§§eetharaf§éa' 'Rab, & Sri.Ja£ Prakash, Advs.)

Ah

smz%.Va&;{:a %   A
47 years; .:_

~ Sfigfiaieem Raja,
 léayears,

S§ri."f'anveer Ahamad

' '27 years,

§(um.Summiya
23 years

@%



5. Sri.¥<utubud6§n
81 years,

1* respondent is wife &

respondents 2 to 4 are children
and respondent 5 is the father V ‘
of Abdulgagar Junedi, ”

all are riat Azam Nagar,
Belgaum.

(By Sri.A.A.MuIIa & Sri.B.L.Acharyé, ‘A§’:iv;%for Rite’ 4,
R5 served.) _ ._ ‘

This Misceflaneous Pita: .£%\;::Ap:»s:al is vfi|e”dfu5nCiz>,r Section 173(1)
of MV Act, against the judgemerat-a’nd _awart:£ dated 3.722003
passed in MVC No.3fi?I2002.~c:~..t§1e fi!e=of the %I”‘Mdl. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.) and Addl..?¥.4ACT, i;BeIga_’;sm,.4V’ps1r$ly’aiiiowing the cfaim
petition for compehsa1;1ish_, . ‘– _ ”

This ‘¥%;r¥isce;.ll:::ne:§§i;és’Fifst’AppeéiI”C’o:§:ing on for hearing, this
day KESHAVANARAYANA.J;V§3飧x{e-red the fofiowingz

‘ ;:E«na E N T

A;§:peiAIant”¥a\£e.TV§ is ihe £:.~wrvrer and appetlant N02 is the insurer

=T Vgarao;ry%%§$earing’%r2;p.MEHV’éSC5. At about 7.45 PM. on 28.?.2002,

the ‘sgi&’ ic»§fry<.f'¢::-§%gm 1i:»y rm driver. dashed against cycle ridden by

_ AbdLIi§é.1farVJ:jf1'§§1«:i¥TV;near F'-.K,.quarters,APMC Read, Belgaum. As

«. a*.rezsuIt of the saié Abdul Gafar Junedi sustained fatal injrues

at the spot. Respondents I's£os.1 ta 5 being the wife,

..__"'&'hiIc 1ren and father of deceased Abdui Gafar Junedi, filed claim

'V V *péfi*'t'ion under Section 166 of MV Act in MVC No.36"?!2902 an the

fiie of AddI.CiviI Judge, (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Belgaum seekmg

w

coezpensation of F2538 takhs, interalia contending that

deceased was sensing in RMS Post Office drawing

satalry of Rs.'l3,000f- and was aged 48 years and he_yaéas.ti:§e'Voni";¥ ' T' T

bread earner of the famity. The petition; ease oontentsted'

respondents. They denied the petition atkennents reoetdtngd. "

avooation and income of deceased.' attr.§Vbuted–.nVegti§-enoe on
the part of the deceased hiifnsellf.T-asV:..'the""-causet'for. accident.
However. issuance of poticy of'i'nsnia_n}:ev the torry in
question and its validity.__as on iwas adntitted.

After the paniee assessnaent of oral and
documented/i_ jndgrnent under appeal
answered :’-.__the __ actionable negtigence in the

afiirrnative holding ititaththeéTacctdent was sotety due to the

negligence of lorfy’dri_Ve%. ivayzipiacing reliance on E.-‘.x.P.?. copy of

nei’1sion theviiiitiifiébunei took the monthly satary of the

deceased thfedate of accident as Rs.10,356f- and the age of

the dee:eaSe<i"_ée.- years. By applying tnuttiplier of 11 and

-. ‘qd’o.ducting” 153″‘ of monthly salary towards the oersonat expenses of

decegased, assessed total toss of dependency at Rs.9,1t,0O0I-.

addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.17,0GOI- under conventionat

V “heads and F€s.1,{)O0i- towards damage to we bicycte. Thus, in at!

the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9.29,00fii- and directed

the appettents herein to pay the same togothet with interest at 8%

W

deposfied by the insurer is in excess sf totai compenstion pa;:é:.t’_§¥’e..V

to the cfaimants irzciusive of interest, me same shaI£ be A’

the insurer.

mv*