High Court Karnataka High Court

Hazeera Khatun W/O Lt Hayath Basha vs The Divl Manager United India … on 2 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Hazeera Khatun W/O Lt Hayath Basha vs The Divl Manager United India … on 2 November, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And K.N.Keshavanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUST§( 3E..  *

I.

J;  -- ..

DATELD '1';--113 T1~»1z«: 2nd DAY OF I\§OVIiM£3ER. 

:PR.ES ENT:

TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR.JUs1f1VcE N.s{;PA9fr;L"'f '- _  1'

AND I

I\/I.F.A.No. 8386 2006 m211\ /A) 

BETWEEN:

HazeeraKhatL111.""'* :"  1 «V
W/0. [,ai.%?._H_';;y211;_h B'«1:§f1a«.  
Aged4.ab0Lé_i"3_i3 years _ "

wviain;.;t;din".'¥::  . -
 S / 0.. 1.211%: }:{_a"yat"r:._ E"u'1.s17.21.'

V;/;\g€d a'bQu{ ";2.,I yea'r.5." _.

Niza~:.r_V1uddir:, A

1 ' ~ SA/0. Iga-1¢VFiaya{'h éasha,
  about 3-ears.

V ..Sh~am_ a__ Banu.
' .9/A0'; Laz.1.e~~}{ayz11%1 Ba:-:.ha4

 iii:-but 17' years.

Saii:Li'dciiI1.

" .S.?'0. Late Hayath BashzL

Aged about 1.5 yea1's.

Khalecznmlla.
S / 0. Late Hayath

Aged about 13 y MM__WW_W____h

asha.



7. Aiyas1'1abi.
D/0. Late I"iz1_\/with Basha.
Aged about £1 years.

8. 811621. S/0. Late I--iayaih Basha.
Aged about 3 years.

Appellants - 4 £0 8 are minors Rep by  »  b 
Naiurai gua1'dia11 mother Ap~p'é}i'zm1 -1} "

All are R/0. Bhovi Coiony.   A': '  '~ , «.
Near New Water Tank; G_0paia'p_L.11*'a r0a_d".'-  Vv
Chitradurga. --_  V" . ' _ ~  

  _ ' h  ---_..,_.;X1')pe}}21111's
{By Sri. Jayarma G.R.v.'_Ad_voc_é1t,e}V  .

AND 1

1. The Di'.fi'S_i0ni1'i £t@4a11.age1'. -
'!j11i1ed. Ind  'AI us L1'V'1"-23166;" Co. Ltd ..
D3'Vis--io1'1ai_Of'f1'c€."E\{IfM:K Complex.
Akk:»;.n1z1ha'C1c\?i. f<o;u}, Dava 11 gere.

 The Maliétgfsr, ____ 

V" C51"1'eh:'a1 insurance Co. Ltd..

  .2"'*',F«i.Qi)r,_ Parimaimn Complex.
= _I_"1-.V_&E;'.V;N._:..R0ad Erode -- 638001
' V'    Respondems

{By Srir 'AN. Krishnaswamy. Adv0caE'; on for Admission Eééis 4d&'j.'..),:-.";'~

PATIL J. deiivered 'ihe i'0IIOwing:

:JUDG    -'T

Admit.

2. This appeal is direete'(;%. agairist' Hie 7jz.1dgn1ei1t

and award  "$111 MVC
No.68?/2003 by f,]1€VV'iVe:é1AiVfVI"i{e'<V'ZVlVb  Aidid§s;;Dn'ii1i Civil Judge
(Sr.Dvn] zJ_x_.'1'1'L".';J-h 'Adijlitiaoriéil   Chitradurga,

(i11fe iI'1'e_ 

Tribunal is the mother of the (L£Ae(:easejdu'S1*'i'._'Md;..i<i§iygit,i'1

Basha, who was aged about_. 45 V"yea'rs Eiflfi"v'uVv()l'kii:}gV'E1S'u;

Cleaner in a Lorry  No. 2 The
appellants have ffileef  c.1;_aiiia":-.._'goetiiion before the

Tribunal. Clainiing  10,00,000/--. on

acLtot:ini'Vi'o'f.:fi[1e  t.he_"VVd'eeeased Sri. Md. Hayath
Bash2i;-.in«.tIie-§it:e:idei'i.i;i"'which occurred on 21.5.2003 at

5.30. _Vp.m.","' e_(j11i:e.:1c1Ai'n§,7""ihat. on tliai. day. the deceased

 'w21s<' zi/'ravfiylling  a. cleaner in 21 lorry bearing

  and when the said lorry came near

Kygidigereiiyjvillage on NH4 road, the driver of the lorry

 Abeai'i.i';g:'No. TN- 27--K«2135 came from Aimahgala side

ijcixmrds Chitradurga in 21 rash and negligent" ma1'mer

V ._..w1th high peed and dashed against the lorry in which

the deceased was f,ravel1:1' ig. Due to which. the cieeeasecl
;' M

/'
1

I



.

‘J3
:

and others sustaitled injuries and inlmediately. he was
brought to [)ist’rict Hospital Chit.rz1d’L1rga and t11ereaft.er.
shifted to Bapuji Hospital Chitradurga arid he

S1,1(,’,CUIT3b€d to the injuries on 22.5.2008. ‘I’}1e..sai.d’ e}ai’nf1

petitiorl had come up for eonsideratio11h__ 2′

Triburlal. which in turn. ai’t.erV’ I1eari:1g_lntjtelldsideé’ ‘ar1d

after assessing the oral and do(?i1–n1e;1t.a11y.-éxriAd’er1(:e.. h:1S’a

allowed the Said claim pet.ifj2iQf1″ in part and awarded a
sum Rs.2,81,E:’:O0/’e~’__”as c.bm_pen,s:’1vi,’i*0n under different
heads with interest at pf_a..; f1*'(“J~111′ ‘Eh-:>–“date of petiiljon

UH its”19ea}i;{;–.1ti0fi§.”‘Bemg aggrieved by the said judgment
and awa.rd._ me’«ap,pe«1.1;n..u:) have presented this appeal.
Seeking e19i’haVneeine1’1t.”””

2 vV~..f«e heard the learned counsel for the

a;1’peA1lva:r1i;VS ff-a-rld learned counsel appearing for

reis«p()I1__€1E:1fs.

E}; :Aft:e1* careful perusal of the judgment. and award

by the ‘i’ribu.na1. it is not in ciispme that,

-‘cdieeeased Sri. Md. Hayaih Basha died in the aeciderltz

r_”W__w_»_,_…

net income comes to Rs.2.250/~ per month. The

appropriate Multiplier applicable to the case i§:~i..ir2._h~:11’1d

is ’14’ as per the law laid down by the

case of Saria Verma and othersm ”

Corporation and another 1~epo:1:4tecE’_”in:’

instead of Multipiier ’13’ a’dt)’}:2ted ‘by theit’

net income of the deCeased…iVV$A’~ta’i»:,en *Rs_.A2H,f:35O/» per
month and Multiplier” _ the totai loss; of
dependency eQrr1_es X 12 X

I<1:.3,78.QOt}/_¢) V. .. oi": R.'sf.2?49.eo0 /~ awarded by
the 'I':1*i'l:$t1 is awarded.

ht committed an error in not

awarding c:Qimp’e11As”e1tion towards loss of estate and

t.}1’e.r{efQre.’v~–1.te need’s”‘tb be awarded. Having regard to the

‘dfachte 4V”et.r(j}.1rr1stanCes of the case as stated above.

a1ppel’i€ah’t.s are emitted for a sum of Rs.i0.000/~

t0wa}’d.§: loss of estate and accordingly, It Is awarded.

8. So far the amount: awarded by the Tribunal

at towards other heads i.e. loss of consortium. loss of love

and affeetiorl. towards medical and other incidental
___W_W_,,.._4.,.

and towards transp0rt.at.i0n of dead body and
fL11″1eraI expenses concerned. the same just and

reasonable? and it does not call for interferen(7r3.

9. Having regard to the facrts and <3irc:L1m–s.ta.1_§_('"£%s_ 'of

the Case stated above._ the irnpugne_c], _j_L1'dgm:€i11<_t ar"2"d._

award passed by the '1_"ribuna1I_is

The total compensation payable to,

and the break» up is as _

1. Towards loss of d€L}3.€:?”1d€’_r1C§«’v, 3.78.000/~

2. Towards loss of esi.a.1:ef Rs. 10.000/»~

3.T0wards lossof Co11_s.9Ifti~urn. ‘ I.Ré. 10,000/ ~

4. Towards loss of loége and aff€~:-<i'_t:_on' Rs. 10,000/~

5. ‘F0wai’dS ..fnedii§a’l and ot,he_”1* V
inC_i_de.n«taV1V ‘ ~ Rs. 02.000/~

6.T0wards trarV1s’pt_(;1ftT’at_i€);1<
and fumjral eXpe"nses" Rs 1.0,000[~
a " "£'ma1 Rs. 4.20.000/~

–ACc<;rdiI1g1y, the appeal is allflowezd in part: and

judgnlenl and award passed by the

Triubglfzal MVC No. 68?/2003 stands modified. gmniiirlg a

AAc0'rzT;1)c%1;isz1iic)z1 of Rs.4.20.000/~ insteaci of Rs.2,8E,600/~

'AA'-(é»f1}iaI1céeme11t, being R.1.38.400/–]. Thf-2 e:"2I"1a11<~.e.d

'_v____"___W___m……-.

c()n1per1sa€’ior1 shall carry irltcrcsst. at 6% p.e1., !rc__)_1n the

date ofpct’itior1t’i}1 ifs re;-1Iize1£i01’1.

The second respondent ~Ir1ssu remcc ‘L;30I1.17V}V”)J I'”if,’_:. ‘ ‘ ;

directed to deposit ihc enimrlccd~c=:(m1pe’r1sa4ifoo €117’l.1:(‘)E,1V\1′.1t’

with interest. within six weeks °fr()m “I.h<3 "d;;1'tcé_(;.1'

of the Copy of this jL1dgn1erit:..:§i3,_ci z1§§f'2;1é_(§;

Out of t:hVe.– c0'nfi1'p'cr1sseiEtior1 of
Rs. 1,38,400/ ~ sum o#f' proportionate
interest of each of
appellant? rr:{fgtir)'11aiizcd or sc:hodu}cd
ba111k:v; ii"1 iV appcilant No.1 shall

be emiiizled to xx'J'it'::_oi1<_:T1r21__\ V.lhe irltcresi accrued on it. for

t.he_w_elfaré" a;.)po}1'a.r1'f".Nos. 5 to 8.

i__";'¥,it"'-Qf thc ré'fIiVainIng amount of R898,-400/~ with

'Vpropor 't!.Vor;4éit;r: j..1m.ercst., a sum of Rs.10.000/- with

}j1*opc)rEi<)r1;at.c interest shail be released in favour of

AAeg1ch.'o}:"3thc appeilant Nos'. 2 to 4 and Smt. Bibijan. who

A' we'.-1S?t.:11e mother of the deceased and rcspondeni No.6 in

claim petition and a sum of Rs.58.40O/W with

proporiiormtc i11t:e1'est s all be released in favour of
MMMM

appellant. No.1 inmmediaieiy. on deposit by the $ec':or1c1
respondent ~II}SL3I'8I]C€ Company.

Draw the award. accordingly.

V RIDGE

tsn*

gd/.