High Court Karnataka High Court

G M Umadevi W/O Lt B C Shivaram vs V Anand S/O Venkataramaiah on 20 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
G M Umadevi W/O Lt B C Shivaram vs V Anand S/O Venkataramaiah on 20 September, 2008
Author: V.Gopalagowda & K.N.Keshavanarayana


fietween:

In THE HIGH center or KARIIATAKA AT BA!_§£’zAL€¢- .

Dated: 20″‘ day of Scptfimher u 2

Present , *
mm aoarnm m.wm1cm_ v.eem1.A _
aoumm m.maT2§f.E._
§,._r_f._4 No.

1 . x

WV/1QWLz=afE B,<::s§;ivARp.§§A:vw

2 B,,'s.1iL.LNo.2 M1N’0’R.. REPR. BY
NATURAL’ GUARDIAN MOTHER
4;jAF’PL.No.”1.__ ‘
v.’:__”~B;QTEi,_ARE R ‘vA–N’o.630,
Uiéswaxgs ‘A’ MAIN ROAD
” ~ . am flwcix, JAYANAGAR
‘BAN{}A1.g0RE~56o 082 ….APPELLAN’I’S

A (By ‘a.§;;§.sREEN1vAsA1AH–AI)V)

7v.ANAND

s/0 VANKATARAMAIAH
swam MAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD
WHITEFIELD

BANGALORE —— 560 066

2 THE MANAGER
M] S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
# 67′] E, 13″ FLOOR, REDDY COMPLEX
WHITEFIELD ROAD

.’ ”

MAHADEVAPURA POST

BANGALORE – 550 043

(BY SR1 O.MAI-IESH–ADV FOR R2}. jg –

–oOo–[

M.I3′.A is am under Section ‘i:7i:=-3(1) o£cthéi1x&.V A¢t f c

against the Jucigacnt and “1’/’$3001

passed by the MACT, BaI1g’&!<_ire_V city— No.
2274/2002. ,Z _i_~.'»c *» ~

This M.F.A cominjgi cf: ff§r:iica3?ii1:§,"?I'V_'s3zci'oI'c the Court
this day, upon J delivered

the foiiowinggv ' ._ .L
c, fact the quantum of
compeccaificfi *~ Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, :Baxigal6re."- M.V.C No.4934/2001 the

have this appeal sec]-dug

The claimants filed claim petition under

'V V' 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claim' ing

for the death of B.C.Shivara.m. The first

"claimant is the wife and sccond claimant is the minor

son of deceased I–3.C.Shivaram. The accident in

k

question and the death of the deceased in

accident are not disputed.

3. It is undisputed that theVdeceased”v:ajs ‘4 ” =

as Police Constable in Police

date of his death, his as

Certificate Ex.P-7 was He 45
years. The the loss of
dependency has:’taken.A’oi11§.’:;t}ie-fiiet Rs. 3786/ -.

It is loss of

gross salary as on the
date of ”taken into consideration and

the only can be allowed are the

‘statutoi-‘nyi dedactioiis A such as Income Tax, Professional

«pa. V 1n..s;;;te,t’cfitius, the Tribunal has proceeded to take

on.1y~.. Thus, the Tribunal has committed

error whiie computing the loss of dependency.

dd It is also contended by the learned counsel for

‘T ” claimants that the deceased was aged 45 years and

he had another 13 years of service, therefore, he would

b

have earned one or two promotions

superannuation and also higher salary

service on account of annual K V’

pay revisions. Therefore, the ineemehfoivr 1 ._

computing Ioss of dependeneji”..shoiiid__ “higher ” L’

than what is mentionedzirl ;– “-»

5. Learned eou.n’se_1* ~fo::_ remained
absent. Therefofevg of the matter.
6; ” c:ef1sit1efebie”_’fo1*ee in the contentions
of for The Apex Court

in the (}aVVV’;w Q of Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

.85 o:s;rem~:ea in 200314) s.c.e 162 in

h’ V thus: –

. T._”’14. The amount of compensation

— indisputably should be determined having

*~ retgard to the pecuniary loss caused to the

; dependents by reason of the death of the

victim. It was necessary to consider the

A earnings of the deceased at the mac of the

accident. Of course, further (sic~:future)

prospect is not out of bound for such

consideration. But the same should be
founded on some legal principle.”

%

The said decision squarely applies to this “A4

Having regard to the fact that the

years of service he would have ai:4A1e§3st’V:vone or

two promotions. He would heve

increments, pay revisions’
Therefore, in addition i.oV_i11e.<gi'o'ss:' fiaemissed in
Ex.P–7, some more tio to reckon
his average loss of
dependency; .'ic:':oii.sideration all these
factorsg Z _tO that the average
mommy' i_Iicr:)II1e… should be taken at

Rs."1jD,'GQO/-x isaniiual income should be taken

3as %ies.ii,[2o¢,eoo/–. If one–third of this is deducted

expenses, the balance works–out

_ to I7¥s.8€):,€)()i"}/–.

A. , 4_ 7;" "Having regard to the age of the deceased, the

multiplier applicable would be 13 which is

T applied by the Tribunal. In the light of this

the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,4(),()()O/ .

In addition to this, the claimants are alse entitled to

&

Ordered by the Tribunal.

Rs.40,000/– under conventional heads. Thu$v,~.,V_tI§:e*

claimants are entitled to a total [jef

Rs.10,80,00{)/– as against Rs.6,57.,4_Q8/ V

the appeal deserves to be allowed”-« ~

3. Accordingly, the
the compensation to V ‘interiast at
6% per annum from payment.

The enhanced
within eight

weeks’; A’ of a copy of this
judgmerm and disbursement of

enhagrlced comféevhsation shall be in the same

Sdl-2″

Iudqe

Sd]-9

A MP-bpy4108 hag’;