IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
TI-IE I~ION'BLE MR.JUsT1eE_K.N;Is::$sHAvA1mimYA.$iAvat °
1.
DATED THES THE 16TH DAY 09' OCTOBER, 2o09:""»r
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K._PAi'I§. ' % T t"
M.F.A.No. 54 zoo?
BETWEEN:
Gangabai A
W/ o. late M1.1ruga1'1'a11(i:arr1'* t t
@ Mur1J.:ge';'-"vIj_'V1W,:V'_' 38 1-{ea__rs...'
M_Ar;:£ha';'-V " "
Mu'%f1iga'nar1da3ri_"V""' V
@ M_uruge>:E1.. *
Aged about .
M.sar.:hosh,-._ A
.4; ' 8,1,0. 1ate'M1}iruganandaIn
' @..tM11_1"ugeSh,~-- ----------
A'ged._ab.out 17 years.
M ia;
* D/ o'.- 3;E1t';"3 Muruganandam
'M1 xrugesh,
u ,.Aged about 15 years.
x I Petitioner Nos. 3 and K; are
Minors being represented by
Next friend and guardian their
Mother first petitio er Smtfianga Bai.
5. Andalamrna
W/o. late Thangaraj,
Aged about 67 years.
All are residing at
No.294/285, 6"' main road,
2"" Block, 3'" Stage,
W.C.Road. Bangalore.
[By Sri. D.L.Suresh, Advocate) _V
. AND l
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd;; " "
Represented by its Manageif
Regional Office. _ ..
Mahatma. Gandhi Road,.:
Bangalore
2. NS. _
St/o;~Ve11kata;,Gowda? K
YellaInnia..TeI'i1p1e.'Street, --
Nvagamangaliet, M '
Mandya District.
Respondents
‘V V. -( .E{ind’ sen/ed ; Vlliinerepresentedl
l”–‘EV’1f1isl MFA’-..:s filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
jridgrnelnt”jand,.”award dated: 22.01.2007 passed in MVC
No..7643/20535 on the file of the XVI Addl. Judge, Court of
Small =fCa’u”ses, Member, MACT. Metropolitan Area,
is lV._Banga’lorAe. (SCCH.No.l4), partly allowing the claim petition
fer:-” compensation and seeking enhancement of
” « . V’ compensation.
This M.F.A. Corning n for Admission this day, N.K.
-~-PATIL J, delivered the fo wing:
l » . _’ lfiplpellams’
:JUDG MENT:
Admit.
2. This appeal is directed against the. *
and award dated 22.1.2007?.._passe’di””t.–i13Vd°
No.7’6«<18/2005 by the learned Akiditienei' _
MACT, (SCCH~14), Banga1oi*e:,:"'fhereihafteijdfefeffed te as d
' Tribunal' for short). V
3. By its judgriiteht Tribunal has
awarded a of jj<.VV\v?§\"7i'tVjh:'i11terest at 6%
p.a., from as realisation. Being
have filed this appeal,
ground that, the amount
awatded the is inadequate.
4;.-L, I1’lzbFi€.f’th{5faCtS of the case are:
— apvpeilant No.1 is the wife and appeilant Nos.
2 aretthedtnchildren and appellant No.5 is the mother
the deceased Sri. Muruganandam @ Murugesh. The
e:.&’»a§3pe}:lants have filed a ciairn petition before the
V%..Tiiibuna1, ciaiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, on
it account. of the de of the deceased Sri.
Muruganandam @ Murugesh, in the accident, which
occurred on 14.5.2005 at about 9.00 AM, when the
deceased was driving the car bearir1g–»_f”–«No’.
KA.02.AA.1947 on NH–48 near
Kunigal from Chikkamagaiur to’ ‘Ban.gaiore’.”
one occupant namely, Rajendra,A:’«slo’.yiy
and at that time a Mitsuhishi Canter No
KA.01.8142 came ,fro;n op”posifteV””es.ide ‘driven by its
driver with high speed irihaifajsh andttfnegligent manner
and dashed the of 5th–e–d_ecfeased and due to
of the car sustained
injuries’ar1’d_irnrnediatel§”they were shifted to NIMHANS
hospjt-31A anddhdudring the course of treatment, he
on 15.5.2005. Further it is the
dVa’p”p’e11ants that, the deceased was aged 40
years ar1d.«-“he was Working as a taxi driver in M/ S
dinternationai Travels, Srirampuram, Bangalore. and
the salary of Rs.4,000/– per month and
it ‘”R0s.125/~ per day as Bata. The said claim petition had
come up for consideration before the Tribunal on
4
;
:7
22.1.2007′. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and
after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, has
allowed the said claim petition in part and awaifded a
sum Rs.4,66,000/– as compensation
heads with interest at 6% p.a., frorn the_–‘datei:’of ” it
till its realisation, as against the
appellants for a sum of Rs».l8’;’0.Q,OOO’/:–.
by the said judgmentgand Vga.vsrai*d;”–.the “appellants have
presented this appeal!”seeisilargfeiihah-Gerrient..
5. We have ‘~.l’earnedxlileounsel for the
appellantsl of time.
6;” fl’he lear1i;eVdV’eoi1n’sel appearing for appellants
submitted the lribunal has erred in taking the
lithe deeelalsed at Rs.4,000/~ per month and
towards his personal expenses and in
applying’ lfiiiltiplier ’18’, while calculating the loss of
dependency. Further he submitted that taking into
it ‘eonsideration the numbers of dependants, the
“appropriate deduction towards the personal expenses
of the deceased would e l/-filth instead of 1/Sid and
……._.,,……,,l….(…..,,…_…,,.,..»,.,.,..-…
appropriate Multiplier applicable is ‘I4’ instead ‘l3′
as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sarliil:”€’:l£éf:7fraa
and others Vs. Delhi Transport Cor’por=¢:tio:1::
another reported in 2009 V
submitted that the impugned:
passed by the Tribunal is liableito be it
7′. After careful the Vsubrnissions
made by learned couriselp the appellant
and after : judgment and
award lhe only point that
V V
awarded by the
Tribunal _ is just reasonable?
, After earelul perusal of the material available on
»ree.o_Vrd._l not in dispute that, deceased Sri.
@ Murugesh died in the accident
occurred on 14.5.2005 at about 9.00 am. The
l..ffTvrib1.inal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,l6,000/– towards
‘ llcgssllof dependency and the same is inadequate and it
it “needs to be modified. ‘l%’ribuna1 has rightly taken the
K
K
instead of Rs. 44,16,000/– awarded by the Tribunal and
accordingly, it is awarded.
9. So far as the amount awarded by ~
towards other conventional of
Consortium, loss of love and ai?feotio’n, lo-ss–_of_ es:’tat’e,,
funerai and obsequies and trlansportationllof body”
is Concerned, the relasonable and it
does not call forinterlere_n’ce;-.it’ 4. it A
10. Hayiiatg circumstances
of the case’ thlyeijinipugned judgment and
liable to be modified.
lljappeal is allowed in part and
the ‘ and award passed by the
‘ “~v./frilbslinafil in Nef7e43/ 2005 stands modified, granting
.eeeapeee,’a£1Vee’.i~~e{ Rs.5,54,000/– instead of Rs.4,66,000/–
{eeeegneeimeet being Rs.88,000-). The enhanced
“‘oornpe1i,s:ation of Rs.88,000/– shall carry interest at 6%
. it p_V.’a–.,…l5frorn the date of petition till its deposit.
The first respondentdnsurance Company is
directed to deposit the comgensation amount with interest,
it
within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copypi” this
juclgme nt and award.
Out of the enhanced compensation of
sum of Rs.10,000/– each with interebst Win’
the names of appellant Nos. 2 to 41in. any».natiOnaliz–ecl’ Tior
scheduled bank, till they att;iir’i-..rna}'()’l1’it3lJV’. The*apAp;elJaVnt5N0i. L’
shall be entitled to Withdraw .Vinterest.”ac.cri1edvf?0n it, for
the welfare of appellant–«..l_§l:r’Js_l ta ”
Out of Aremainj.r1€5.._ }aifl.5;£.,pt”””v:if;’75Ré’.58,000/- with
interest» interest shall be
released and the remaining
aH1Ou1.”;1vlllA .–l’jv_r1vVterest shall be released in
favour def ,:l:_i:rr1rriediately, on deposit by the first
resp_rmdpent’33irisurance- Ccirzpany.
V l)rawA.the accordingly.
tsn*