.....1.... IN THE HIGH couzarr or-* KARRATAKA AT IJATED 'nus THE 415 DAY or e- BEFORE, 4 mm Horrnm MR..1Us'r1cz;é_'_'n~."s. Farsi; ' M.F.A. Ho. 2'.?$'QF BETWEEN: 1.
V’ . ‘clde1¥:A’sister, 1″ herein.
. Master K. 1: V.
Kumazi.K.shakuntha1s§,” _
D / 0. Late KeshVaPPas
Aged about 20,years; — _ ‘
S/o.iategKe:§11vétpg}§.1, _
Aged. about lfijyears; ._ ” V
Maeter
S/o.’1;at€; Keshva*ppa,. _ ‘
Aged about Ifiyears; ‘A
Minor 295 13″» fippéfléfits are
Repmsented ‘l’Iij3″1v.’hCi’IT guardian]
V APPELLANT8
Adv.)
a.._.–.–~.m…
Anand., S] o.V.Som1egowda,
A. Vebgiajoi’ by age,
_ Residing at Dasamhosahalli,
“D-;I{.}’~la11i Post, Bangaxpet Taluk,
Koiar District.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office–XI, Tower Block,
Unity Bufldiag Complex,
J.C. Road, Bangaime —- 560 002,
Rep. by its Manager. RESPONDEHTS
(By Mrs.PIeeti T.Kumar, Adv.
for SI:i.B.C.Sv::etharamarao, Adv. for R-2
R– 1 is served but umepresented)
This appeal is filed 11/s 173(1)Hof the.’Moetoif _
against the Judgment and Awaxdjdated 28«,O9;;2(;}{}£$_ pa’3Sed’«in
MVC No.49?4/ 2&4 on the tile of the :_’I4~.F”* Addh. SC’JV;,,,”oi*1Ieini:)er
MACT., Court of Small Causes, ‘~Ba11ga1orc
(SCCH– 10), partly allowing the pet1tione1or.eox:1;:;ensatio1t’
and seeking enhancement of coaiapensafion.
This Appeal oommg on ‘far edreission, eagz, the Comt
delivered the following: — .– . ”
1. This is seeking enhancement
of oon1pene5;tio_ti.’_V
2. win a motor aeeident that occurred on G1. 11.2003,
Smt. of the claimants died. The
c.hi]d1ei1′ deceased preferred a Claim Petitiozx
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, through their
ian as their father was 8.130 killed in the
acoident.’ » They claimed compensation in a sum of
Rse.5,oe;e’o0/-.
£3. The daughter of the deceased Kurnari Shakunthala
herself as P.W.1. Another Witness by name
Sn1.V.Rajappa was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P5 were
produced and marked. it was contended by the claimants
we
_4…..
for the family by doing laundry work, the deceés’edf’.VWas
supporting the entine family by doing the
Therefore, the Tribune} ought to h_ave.__takeji1″titeiiitcomeieéwofvtite .
deceased at Rs.3,{)OO/- per moiith ma: 2
month.
6. Counsel for the sgpeflast ixzivvooiitending that
the Tribunal erred ‘_g_towa:ds persona}
expenses of 1:215; Hafiifig A’ a large family, the
deceased for herself. Hence, the
1/3′-“d towards personal
expeztses’ loss of dependency. It is also
seen applied a wrong multiplier of 14,
whegeas the to be adopted is 15 as the age of
found to be 35 years at the time of the
loss of dependency is calculated takm’ g the
Wsgee at Rs.3,000/- and deducting 1/3” towards
expenses and applying the multiplier of 15, the
t would work out to Rs.3,6o,ooo/-. The Tribunal has
‘V —–sWarded only a sum of Rs.5,00{)[~ towards loss of love and
affection This deserves to be enhanced to Rs.15,00€)/ -. In all
other respects the amount awazvded does not zequixe any
i.nte-rference.
.. 5 _.
7. In the result and for the foregoing, the appeal isgdlowed
in part. The compensation to which the claimants :’¢I;;fit,§ec1
is determined and fixed at Rs.3,89,00{}/ ~.
entitled for interest at 6% 11.21. on the: c_nha_’:iC”é:(“i’ ‘ dd
the date of petition till its rcalisatidn.
shall be deposited within a of datzd L’
of Receipt of a copy of this judgr;§ifl§._
pas d