Gangarangamma vs Ramachandraiah on 14 August, 2008

IN THE HIGH coum' OF' IMRNATAKA 'AT   

DATED THIS THE :4'I'H navvapzjxuééusz?  

Pksssmf V Q   %
THE I~ION'BLE MR.  
  %   
THE HOIVBLE i\rA!A3§:'..._:}'_{:J.S'f"§V(A}$§ii}'E§¥f§€)'jPANNA

M£SCELLAr§'E{,}LISV FfIi'3S'F_ 16/2005 (MVC)

GANGARANGAEEAV-«w.._:""A " 
wéo GANGAIAH' _    
A ED ABOUT 39 YRS,  v 
RGAT VADEGH_A'I'I'A . * "

K NITAL'I'Q.,  
UTPAREDURGA HCBLI,

 v   '?'----'--hiKUR DISIX,

. . APPELLANT

{ B_:,r Aéautfr. "F;{é;;KA':§P'ANA, ADV.)

*  QAMACHANDRMAH
s 0 LATE BYRAPPA
c ANDRAPPA BLDG,
NEAR mmmm TEMPLE,
HEGGANAHAIJJ,
BANGALORE.



2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
35 G ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001

_    
(By Sri : s v HEGDE MULKHAND, A»1:§_V. FOR 'R2. _:j  %  1

THSS APPEAL ES FTLED ms 17's: 11 joF'Mv ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWA12!) BzK'F:ED_:28..f;.;?0Q5 PASSED IN
MVC NCL1690/03 jam 'm;a:..§«fmE 'QP*_'l'HE xv} ADDL. JUDGE,
MEMBER. MACT..-.Cf.3_UR'":? QF".sMALL_~V._cAU$Es, BANGALORE
(SCCH-14} PART1;%g.-- gzmwasnc '1'HE"CiAi'M PE'!'1TION FUR
C0MPENSA1'If3«'N*'4 'u.;sE:s:K1NG«,' ENHANCEMENT or»
COMPENSATION..;-  »    '

T11}; A;§pea1%c..%jxfifig_i'g5n iur Orders, this day, Dunn:
VERHA, J.g.. the fofilmving :

IV A'  ..... 

  appéflant *J Szzi Hcgdc Mulkhand, Lemma oolmscl for

..  ; % ~ . __'mgpqnd£-.m'No.2.

2. This is 3 claimant's appeal under Secijon 1'73 (1) of

 [the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the ma dated

28.02.2005 passed by thc Motor Accident Claims 'I'ribmm1



(for short the 'Mama, Bangalore, in "  
whcxeby md whcrcunder the solar: alppc"  >113'? 

Rs.2,91,00{)/-- as   'for V

enhancement.

3. All  'been dhpumd
befone us. The; hetbne the

mar which  no  the aim petition of.

the   advanced bcfom us is that
while  =5; of the appcflant, the MAC'?

 vgzavcly}:§ii*c"ti in  the conclusion that the dammed

    50% of his income on @sc3£ In

  was workm g m a Clcmcr drawm' g a

 aalaxy' bf R' !:§..2730[- per month mt} was hvm' ' g in K@al'

"  {'f__  . District.



spent more than 1/3"' of his  

obviously he was giving the   

appellant who happens to be hi3.é.'z:gother;. 2

5. To buttress   Counsel for
the appenam has placed  Bench of am
Court n=:portod2_    « in the case of
LAKSHMAN  )  VSUSHEELA came
cHoUn}iAiéY  has been drawn

to pan: 6"'.th:a.5§i',  hereunder.

e if is,  ""i1'bdul Khader, learned oousnaei
,  gp;3¢azé1'1«_g: 'f9r the Insurance Company, submitted
3   Ciiuft in several decisions has observed that
  spend more on themaeives and
 of their earnings will have to be

u j deéiucied towards personal expenses. This may be
V' in respect of bachelors living in cities where there
  so many diversions far spending money; but Int
E so in a small backward town where the deed was
living, where the opportunity fior spending money
would be very much less. Therefore, we consider



deduction of 1/3*' towarda personal   u  

be appropriate."

6. In the light ofthc   (hen " A

been strenuously    tbr thc
appellant that in View   iisaturcs of
this case, it can safely  deceased must
have been spggt   nimscxc If that
is taken to  B' m%&A- m-  {groan be the mount

of depc::1:iviencyTV  1  _ _'

7,   Counsel ibr the n°:spondcnt-

 }ngu:i¥.=:noe:..  placed mhancc' on a jud@cnt of

  gif   reported in 2004 AG] 699 in the case of

jfiim ANOTHER ---vs» KARNATAKA CEMENT

 'PIPE FAQIJRY AND OTHERS to contend that generally

  :§1:§;x§%'it_.is a case ofdeath efa bachelor, 50% of the mama

    he dcducw from the tram} income of the deceased.
 put forth this point further, the mm Colman} pimed

mfianeconpmas7a;nd8ofthcdet:%n<:iead supra.

W



iooldng to the peculiar facts and     
of the opinion that the   

50% of the income on the that  
been spent by the  on   social
status of the appellant  their family
backgmund, thg;   and Inna such
other ihctoija'    d9uh£?._i.n_  mind that the
deocascgt   than 1/3rd of his
income tznf  213m of his 'meme he
must have   fig) mother for my  This

_._we }még;1"s.:.~ as  case on account of the facts m

   

 Piici cifher point was urged bcfzm: us. Thus, the

W  'bf; compcnsaéon is enhanced to R3.3,68,0{X}/--

V A'   Thmc Lakhs Sixty Eight mama only) afbr
V   1/3"' oftlm income which the deceased must haw
   spent on hjmsclfmstead of50% as done by the M501'.

*2»



The appeal is allowed to the cxtcnt   "' 

and the appciiant is held entitled ibija 

amount shall carry interest at sghag by
the mar, Bmgalorev by the
Insmancc (Jompany. and
her husband in the same
proportion azi MACT, Bangahn.
ih c this appeal is 31% in

part with }i1(; izzrjélcr

Sd/–

Iudge

Sd/-

Iudge