MFA No.11?’13/200′?
§N’ THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCKEFI’ BENCH AT DHARWAD
BATES THIS THE 3RD war 0:? F’EI§3RUAi?_’§?l’_§()§’§§v:’—-:: _ : .
BEFORE A
THE HOIWBLE MR.J{ss’r;cEf_-.Eg$s.i>14{i41;,’*–: 4′ ‘V
M.F.A.No.,1’111§L’§§§g A j V’ 2
BETWEEN: ‘
Divisienal Manager, ‘ .. _
National Insurance Co. Ltd’.,;- ‘
Pest Box No.88, ” .
Bflguadicompiex; %
Sttion Road, Guibégzéga, =: A V
Now I’€}3I’CSC;ITi*’i€d2V_i§S ‘V __
Regionai 0f’f’ic€:,.:’ ” .
Nafiana}_In$ti::aficb.: L;tdV,,” ”
Regional Ofiicfi
144, IvI.*{V_f}.R0aci,’ w _ ._
Bangaiora – S66 .(;§m_;_~. _ ‘ __ .. _ ..APPELLANT
‘~ _ Av.——‘$haugu1e, Adv.)
S! 0 fivhanlienae,
New aged abxmt 48 years;
‘K;?gstuz’bai,
V’ Wfe Manijkrao Jadhav,
New aged about 41 years,
O-cc: House hold;
Both are residents Gf
Janata Calony, Humnabad.
3. M] sfiangali Polisters Ltxi.,
Rep. by Girish Kumar Sangli,
MFA Nd £1713/2007
03. The parents of the deceased moved the C1aimS’~Ti:ibu;aa1
sacking compensation in a sum of Rs. -*r2§e,
mother of the deceased examzth ed htjnjgclf as. , .
P13 were produced and marked. Sige
that the deceased was eazzlinfg-..I§s.7,dESQ{§i-V
Auto Mechanic. In support of asdéifidfi, thgs cLa31n’ ant
produced a copy of the Municipaiity af
Hunmabad which discloscd Sri Sanl Auto
Works.
G4. 31.313 -‘that the accident eccurred on
account (‘)’t’=t}dcid ahtiahiébladififingélidgence 013. the part of the driver of
the c:j§””cIid ndt”a§<i€§t tide evidence of the claimant with regard
"V't{.=« of wages earned by the deceased as an Auto
3:31: that the claimants failed to produce
any"-1jccQ;_m"s.VdAi3:1Athe form of statement maintained £0 Show that
d£.i:~:?,;-dfsed was earning R$.?,500/- per mauth. In the
VA jV."§:Ai1*::1xf::stances, the Tribunal proceeded to take the incame of
dccaascd at Rs.3,00{)/~ per month and déducting 1/3*'d
towarcis persona} expen:-ma of {he deceased the annual
dependency was wcrked out to Rs. 241100] ~. Having mgaxti to
the age of the mother of the deceased found to be 42 ytiars at
g/.
MFA N0. 11713/2007
4
the time of accident, multipiier of 14 came to be ad0p;:é:§1′:”a1;d a
sum of Rs.3,36,(}OO/– was arrived at as dep_€.;iidé:1_cis{.V5 ;_. 1’n
addition, the claimants were held. enijtled “of
Rs. 10,000] — towatds loss of j;
Rs.10,(}0()]- iowaxds 303$ 01″ 19?: £1
sum of Rs.5,000/– towards expeVi1~s_e’S;.T ‘i’Ifli;#.:1s; a ‘total
sum sf Rs.3,61,0{)O[~ is ‘
O5. Counsel for the ‘fiat tbs Tribunal
committeé towards personal
expensjié’ the that he was a bachelor.
Placing in Civil Appeal 1io.10]2009
decided on’ i}5.0V1..;’:9(?£?b’ii1~’:’Vthe case of Syed Basheex Ahamed
‘ifs. M5h*’–.—-~Jameei 85 Another, counsel contends
in %aVb+s:§:Vz1ce of any evidence to the centxaxy the pra<:ti<:€:
has "bAee1.;1« 'j_C§:'$€luCf towards personal expenses 1/ 3rd of the
U inc0:t§3a::. cése the cieceasfid was maxiicd and 1/ 2 (509/o) if be
A .. waé bacheler.
. H Having heard the learned counsel far thfi appeilam: and
” careful perusal of the mataeriais on FCCOII1, ii is seen that an
young life is snatched away in the accident that occurred on
14.()’?’.2{)()4. Though the mother of the deceassd has led
%,
MFA No.1 W13/206?
evidence asserting that her son was earning Rs.7,5(}{}’/-7 per
month Warking as an Auto Mechanic and a1th01;.gl9;.l$l:¢ee~ ]:3″.ae
produced a license issued by the Munktipality,
Show that he was running a Workslatrfi ictzopvg as $ai7A{ito
Works’, the Tribunal has taken the Eitgeefie
month. It is in this backg1t}1z1:l.<i;..e§.l1e» Trihliugall iifeéeeeled :5' V
deduct 1/3"' towards V personal" egpeflses. fillnll the case of
Bilkish Vs. Unitas India" Limited and
Another 'has observed that
a bachelor tun" more than 1/ 3" of his
total the rest of the amount
earned go to the family The Aiaex
Cour: . in p.§rag::'apI1–4i;"».olf"'..tl1e said judgment observed that
V' detefli1§5;§.:1g'v~–t.3:1c 1eSS"'of dependency by .3(}% was not eozzeet.
in the said case held thatthe deceased must
§3*~"<i towaxfis personal nee and contributing 2/3rd
'v._g£b,is méeme to his family.
“Although this aspect of the matter largely depends on
V’ evidence on mcznrd and it is basically fer the claimants to
establish that the deceased though a bachelor was
centxibuting 2] 3″ E) the family and was epending enly §j3″i
%/
MFA N{}.11?13/200?’
3′
case in the context of the evidence on record, both axial and
documentary, it cannot at 2111 he said that the :«1In£:}u1it _ of
Rs.3,3s6,0{)(}/ –, determined as éepenfiancy to
deceased who was an young abiercl. ma_1′:i’€ii’ ” .
was nuiming a business, is cxcc:ssi§zt:..-j’s’TT»._aS “to V’
hlterference by this _V exe2rc.i§;c
jufisciiction.
08. Likewise, rest of towards loss of
estate, 1033 of 1{_:N:=.V_ expenses 3130
Cannot be f(Z.3_’£2’1.3£=’;i” with. 1 1-Iflcriipzég no merit in this
appea1,’. the__ sé§1fiié’};*:;_$§ervt:.s§_i:;t?, and is dismisseé. The amount
in d€:p0si{.sf1a11 be to the Tribunal for ciishursal in
accozxiaxgce
sa/~
Judge