1
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKAV j%
cmcurr BENCH AT GULBAR§5~; i AL
DATED THIS ms 215T my ofiiugaé
THE HON'BLE Mfl._§'U$T'fCE
BETWEEN: A
SMT.IRAWWA"" %
W/Q~vMALLAO=?PA moamokkgmw)
ace: aousaaono wonx
R30 % 7
%TAi-UK EILAAc;ou9A, Aw. FOR R-2;
R-1 I5 seavea)
F1
WE/«
2
M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER st.-:-c.173(1) of Mom: VEHICLES
ACT AGAINST me suosnam Am AWAR_.9_ -DA.T'ED
8.11.2004 PASSED IN Mva:' r;ot only ha" lacome,
but alsei. hm affection. The 2"'
clairfréiif loss of mofluarly
love 1*' cialmant-huwmd sought
compenséflcfi far less bf consortium.
was rw% by the rumndmw, Le.
Thar defbnm was that ms was In
qfiiesfifih not Involved, and even If It is bad to have
Vmfivoived, the deceased was sowy Wank for
' of the accident. They atso dlsptaw im women
" "and Income.
3%
4
d) The Tribunal based on me material propeslion In
the pleadings, formuiamd 3 Issues _tha
evidence tendered by the claimants.
died during the pendancy o.-{i' 5ih"e«
claimant lead evinnca at.-f._ P\N1A:'aa6 -- "aB§ '§4'aa§appLa
Hadapad Navl as a
regarding nwItges§'::g_ Four
documents were {which Incline copy
of F.I.R., marten report
and driver. on war of an
and marked.
' maumgaaaanber of the Trauma, coamorsag
"t;f:¥e" _ocul.ar .. evidence, aw flu
contaaflon that sufferance of lnjurlm by
V' her consmuent death was the rasaat of
"aaa!--§c'e':$§{" act on the part of the drive' M an vetwc In
.. , aquasfion. Consequently, actlenabie wrong was fafiemd on
V' and vicariously, that owner was held ambit fior
F paymmt of comwasation, ismirancn company is dimctnd
to lndmmify the Insurm in turns of the stmaanu poiky.
rt»
7
3%
5
f) To quantify compensafion, the Tribune!
the evidence that decased Gangawa was
and was a cache. The learned
dnsbwevm that deceased had of as.m,;;p«e.y 1
and on his own, fat safeto
pm. and on that basis,
Rs.2,70,000/~. Butitdf claimana
died during the thshf pewon, km of
dependenc;*;r'*éh§fse. This is new
oniy as compensation.
3. the appefiant 3 justified In
agsgliirfithg and consequent determination, as
re;7a';r;*4a--i='a7isaI of the matmal on recorded, I m
V approach of the Tribune! is «mucus an
't ' aséqfigrftlflcauon Is coneemw.
4. .. __The findings on faca amwd at by the Tribunal thfi
2 Vttim death of Gangawa was res-uit of mam' «hide
atcident caused by tha negligent act of the drive has not
been chailenged by the insum or Insured, and thus, it has
6
reached finality. The claimant seeks enha-nmmgnt and
hence, the following aspects need considarat.ic»h::'V"..V
1) Inceme or the deceasw: As
concerned, respondents though ii
of the dacused, they d%d,__.netA’di#7p°a1to
begin on accwted algmiio. The
accident occurmd iri4″_t’i=.a The ciairnants had put
forward the plea Rs.10e/- per
day, but $’fhé:;Ti1’ri?.3;vii*:Aal€ down to Rs.5&/- by
1111 i**’h’$’é’cmnot Products! and
_ ‘ . of the decaasod
“d§tas.3,o9dx:icrdp.m. by cooiie work. In
, th’e..§hsen§:e of this factor, I consider it
. appropriéte to caicuiata irvcoma at
r”ag.z,soo/- p.m.”
sdciafobsewauon, it is nodes: that an dniy ground
x for’ rgmmg the peumners’ dflm was that they had not
in any docurrmzt. Since R is net in fisputo that an
decaased was a cooiie, one can hardly am any
documentary evidence to pmvo her irmmne. It is for dds
94′:
7
reasen, raiitia are to be kept in mind In fixing flattncmm
for the purpose of compuflno loss of
relevant factors are nermai wags paid to 4_
the date and year of accident and~thg
An elanent of hypothesis Is jiléhigfi 2
not be unreaitstic to the of Lin’
2001, the wages pans to §t..g§}6!%¢”«~wau§d” my lass mam
Rs.75/- per day. !t”‘I5:–nb3y for an tmslfied
coofia. nonnaiiaf._ thei:scs:g1s;%s§::ma taken at Rs.100/-
per day; at hater urnlng.
tnfiféiiié thme foams: Imame n
on amine and we of the
dgcaasetit Ther6f6i’*e,ti’ijtI-no at Rs.59/- per day as time by
A Yeibuaal Iét toiwtha lower side and was mud to fix It at
dgy which wanna be Rs.2,250/- pm.
1_ of the dmasw: Apart from the actual
eamlifig, vc!-auimants need to be coxtted towards ms of
n s;’e:jv:c$ rendered by the deceasw as mother and wife.
This factor has aiso been Ignored by the Tri-hami and
H therefore, at law: a sum of R.s.750/- pm. has to be mded
94%
8
ta it towards loss of services. Thus, for that of
computing less of dependency, the a-ctua_!g€ah 7; A’: of
Income 4» component sewlces evaIua1m.£>_f _
has to be added which corms ‘ i_ j
5. out M the hf
to be deducted towafds deceased
which aim us has m,1,5oo/- pm. am
Rs.18,000v/1-_j:’p_._a., v_:ha}s.V_’_th fimuttlphud by 15
muetspuer§h as.2,7o,0oo/-. To
this, 12 x 15) has to be added
toiearcas _’re’§dcrad by the «cum to the
cla!:ha”‘n.f;fs. _ of dependency would be
%&}s.4;as,ooo;–%;
the Tribunal has calcuiated has of
‘A at Rs.2,70,G00/-, It has redum it on tha
T ba’s*5§*that one of the daimants was dud. That was aiso
3 ‘v.._h?s’1propa’ exmzise. ‘ms is because compensation so
determined becomes part of the mm of the 633%
and hence, such dwucaon omy on the basis that one of
gs;
5?
9
them is dead, needs interference. Therefore, the–surviving
ciaimants would be entitled to the amount as
above.
7. Besides, the csaamgfnt oso “jibe
compensation unda conv’enfion§§£_ti”eaos
amount spent for funerat and
loss of iove and thl CIWMYI!
is enfitied to of mothefly ion
and carg, and taboo and
Rs.1o,ooo;§ In all Rs.4o,oou/-.
8k “I3 apps! is mowed in part. The
impugoéxl is modified, animating the
Rs.1,00,000/_- to as.4,45,om/~. The
t V’:’_’onI§-_o{§c§§”6…:fai}jount shun carry I-nwm at 6% 33.3. from the
‘ an discharge by flu insurance oorrmwy.
Judge
vgh*