,4. U
.,_........
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG15}!,(_V3§li'.V_
DATE!) 'I'HiS THE 121% my or NovEMBE.i§';"f2ar;a.i f' _
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.Jus'r1cI3_ DE}E ?E\K-_VfiR;w!J3K'~ é T
Am? . .
THE HON'BLE MR.Jii"3':fii'cE_ K
BETWEEN :
1 Kuppusgavéimnjf { ~~~
S/o V¢I1kat.€;:s_vsyamy_
55 yrf*é3. '-- b "
2 Rathnammaé _ _
W/o Kupjmswéamy.'
Si} ym. ' . Appellants
-- ham r/a
» P5¢Lamanga1aVTaluk
" Disiédct
' ' Rm & M Gcctha, A<ivs.}
":%:i'4r§,lV$DN',=ntio1r1.alInsu1~aJ1cc Co.Lki
__ Ruzgbztial Oficcr
Rom}
2 S S Prahhu
S/o Krishnaprasad
Satish Auto Gar?
V.S.T Petrol Bunk
Ycshwanthapur,
Bangalore-22 A. .3... 1; '
(By sn C M Monnappa=&~._C- M";é§s'r _1_§r in) if .
This appeal is filed Imdexf S«:cfion" -3 73(1) of MV Act
against the judgmcnt awa5'd..&iatéd_ 23-10'-$092
in MVC No.326/1993 ._cm the --« 'the Prlcivil Judge
(Sr.Dn) Es Addl.MAC-'1', T the ciaim
petition 123:' compcnsatzioxi ;scti1¢ing..'jenhancen1ent of
comP€I1$atioI1- 1
This " zcscnrcd for antlers,
comm' p,"t$1i1'-Tiiir day, RAMANNA J.,
deavema me. £53,, M j
» §gg§éMEyT
by the parents of thc deceased
Ye-nkataswamy, sacking cnhmocmcnt of
by the Add. mar Tumkur in MVC
V -V datm 23-40-2002, whereby and when-: under
of Rs.l,35,000/- together with fix iniicmst
é€V6%:has been awarded to the appcllm:1ts~c3a1man' ts.
2. Bricffiacts ieading to this appeal are as
respondent No.2 as a cleaner in a lorry, _& V'
p.m with batta of Rs.10 per day
2-12-1992 around 4.00 a.m
was sitting in thc lorry No. the
driwn” to mike the same’ tion at
Durgadahafli near Hosaitérgé the said lony
dashed “by V’ rashly and
negligently, the cabin of thc
lorry, giving éustainod severe new
injury and died case was registered
against for the om-mac punishable
304-A 1pc.
of the evidence avmlablc on record,
sum of Rs.l,35,000/~– together with
L,-rgimfiélc intcmst at 6% p.a. from the date ef pc1111on’ ‘
paym: cut. According to appellants, the incomc of the
as taken by the Tribunal to caicuhantc tht hem of
C
, ‘. ,.
7 . /,
. . ,/”
‘
dependency, only at Rs.1,500/– 11.11: is on the _
that it ought to had taken into –. .V
ta the deceased by his empk)yer;¥;
made by the ‘I’n’hu13aI to pay»
‘loss of dependency’ by 50’%’e_ff utewaxfls
personal expenses of _’fi’n”b'”e.¢onec, it is
argued that Tribunal only man! of
income of the expenses.
5. It before us, which even
evidence available on
meozg date, vehicle was owned by
msponamii«.2; his driver an insured with
_ resjgrrjfifierat No;’I’.’-«V not in dispute that the said
V. due to rash and negligent driving of the
its driver, whereby the appefiants have
lost “‘the:7:r: Further. admittedly there was a valid policy
” __theV”i1’£abiIit}r to pay compensation by respondent} also
’13et’–u:é3der challenge.
6. Hawcver the Tribunal cnommittccl an error it
took income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/– pan
he was earning Rs.1,800/- pan [ i.c..
batta of Rs. 101- per day 1. The
into consideration batta by’;
employer, to }mow the montfiigfriaacomé
Further, it is true that a at the
ttmc of his death, but deduction
of 50% out of to work out the
dcpcndcxlcgfgjfj tbs deceased was a
msidcI$’£_o£’$ he did not have avenues to
spemd .9: hi§ ‘n’s_)’fa’i_ on himself, that being so, we
_ A fit deduct only 1/3″‘ amount. Thus the
appcliant would work out to £234,200/~
. 1 4″ p. a.
7; appiiod the mult1p’ liar 34, which work
. ::o:1’£:__’to “R§.2,o1,69o/-. To this we add further amount of
Rs;’if§,O()0/- tmvanzis funeral expenses, has of estate md
transport chargcs. Thus the term} amount sf
would come to Rs.2,11,600/«-.
8. In the light of tlm aromsgié _ j]
is allowed. Impugned award 1 *’
is entitled to total of The V
afonésaid amount w.-,mg;.~ag: 6%’ ;i;a.’ ficom the
date of petition till VA Respondent
No.1/Insumnge oost of litigation
throughout; irocrmad.
Sd3″”‘
Iudge
SM-gm
Iuflge