IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25375 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 200f$""<_
BEFORE
Smt. Munirathnamma,
W/0. Late Ashwathappa,
Aged about 4-8 years,
Residingal No.151/12, ~ -- .V " V
Behind James English " _
Avalahalli, Baugalon: SouthfI'_aiu,k» __ L ._ APPELLANT
(By Sue. Shripad V. Amy': if A.
AND: _ ._ _ .
1. K. G:,'i'i?§ia1:a§§:sh§=§ia3V"r..%' I
S/o. ' '
N0-BIA-58. B, camp,%%. %
Kuenook =A'11d.;ap:ra_ad¢sh,' "
V 2. Tm: Nafiona1V"in:é.fijafi§:c Co. Ltd.,
_ Iiuin-391 Branch,' Complex,
, *{}a1)d1u'13ag"a:, Kurniil,
._ Byits'vManagt:1'L .. RESPONDENTS
{By Sm s. ziegde Mulkhand, Adv. for 122)
1 ‘mas “Misc. First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
“M.V.A::t’against the judgment and award cit. 16.01.2006 passed
MVC No.700/3000 on the file -of the II Add}. Civil Judge
‘(VS:r_..: Dix), MAC’i’~V, Bangalore Rural Dist, Bangalore, partly
the claim petition’ for compensation and sccidng
A ” enhancement of compensation.
This Appeal coming on for Hearing this day. the Court
éelivered the following:
.2-
J U Q G g Q E I
This is an appeal by the claimant for enhancement of
compensation.
2. Claimant is mother of the deceased. =.:§ra;:..
travelling in a tempo. when the °
Ammavarapalli. a lorry bearing NoeAAA«t§’7§SV.dfivee e
negligent manner dashed ‘Dee u1V;V1VV1e said
impact, the elajmanfs 803$’ and was
taken to the Government and from there
he was shifted inpatient from
17.9.2000 to he succumbed to the
injury.
3. It ie ateted’ was aged about 23 years
and was »earnA mt g. per month. The Tribunal
Zeeefi-3ide1i:{ig5»*.the eneemfeund that, the income of the deceased
-. however. deducting 50% of the income
— calculated the loss of dependency.
‘A ” –*¢-.e..’al.’he”on]y contention urged by the learned Coamsei for the
is that, the deduction of 50% is unreasonable. Though
T was bachelor. however. it is not neeessazy that the
xe1ecIue1ion could be always 50%.
“‘\
-3-
5. in this case. the deceased was aged 23 years and
claimant being mother of 42 years and deceased could pct have
been expected to spend more than 1/3*” of the ‘UH:
submitted that, 5096 (ieducticn. is adopted on the bacis
of a Division Bench of this Court reported ILRM V’ ‘
in the matter of GULAM KHADER &
msumzvce CQLTD. & ANO?¥lE.’l._V’w};erein cut *
the earlier decision in case cf bachelcjf 12 as
under: .. V 1 .
‘I2. Invso fa3″””asf baclaelcrs concerned,
normally, is; fpatsqfnal and living
expenses ii.i’s cacnsidered a bachelor will
be more as acquired a wife and
children and’»-!lsgrefc.~re,-. tend ‘to more on himself
‘!?1erc”lis«.¢;L’«;o ‘of’ the bachelcr getting
manfied in’ ‘fling, it: which event also the
con111?)uiicn’!c i}’r,e.’pcz1*ei2.l/ siblings is likely to be
cut drac$iicalIy;w.. subject 29 evidence to the
contrary, e4!§zevfatlaerwil£_~i1az:e his own income and will
In)! be corwidered ca. defemlcmt and only the mother
alcbjrte “w:’lI mn.f3_idered as a. Similarly
A eezbjéci. tcxa.-pidermce to the contrary, brothers and skiers
. are noi«_cQnsidered as dependents, because they will
eviiaziejgendent and earning, or married, or be
~. cnthe father. Thus even if the deceased is
Qunrived by parents and siblings, the famfly is taken as
cxirastlr-:ltingf;”of only two members, that is the bachelor
and the mother, who is considered as the cnly
.. dafetzeiaxzi, and 50% is treated as the personal and
Vlizkfng expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
Vamiribution to thefamxly. However, where family of the
gbClC}I8tOT was latge and defendant on the income of £129
-Ideceased, as in at case where he has a widowed mcther
and large number of younger new-eaming sisters or
brothers, the contribution to the family will be taken
either as two-third, or calculated by adopting unit
method.’
.41..
This Court has held that. 50% could be deducted towards
personal expenses. Lcamed Cmmsei submitted that, agaitsst the
said decision, a special leave was filed before the Ap<;;(.1and
the Apex Court in a (iccision mportcd in (SZ(}O8)-4
matter of BILKISH mus» UNITED HVDE%'''EVS{Li5A;!§C1'§.'j« 4'
Lfl\»fl'I'ED AND Awomm has new
reasonable deduction instead
decision, he submitted that, ciQ<'iu<§fi£)n.._AA cf; 5094;. is
unrcasonabie. . '4 V ' 'V
6. Learned fc5r”f1.i§ submitted
that, in cases of idéfluction given is 50%
and the has considemd the said
matter andv”i3§as’ adéducfion is reasonable in case of
bacheltm. _
‘~–c1ecisfi6t1 %%%% or GULAM KHADER (supra) fell for
the Apex Court and the Apex Gourt against
the of GULW KHADER in the decision of
has observed at para-4 as under:
V ‘?¥;.Afler hearing learned counsel for the parties. we are
‘of -the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and
gthe Tribune! is not correct. The incumbent was a
xbaoheiorand he could not have spent more than 1/3″‘ qf
ink total income far persanal use and rest of the ammmt
earned by him wouid certainly go to the fmnily kitty.
Tiverefore, determining the loss of dependency by 5096
-5-
was not correct. Therefore, we assws that he must be
spending I/3′” towards personal use and contributing
2/3″‘ ofhis income to hisfamily . . . . . . . .’
The van; same judgment of the Division Bench of
for consideration before the Apex Court and .. d
the same judgment has held that, “I «V
deduction couid be 1/3″‘ and not ,
am of the opinion that, the said the V
Apex Court and has case of
bachelor is reasonable.
of 50% is
concerned, it L_ the compensation is
enhanced -‘«. §*vs:1j and above the compensafion
awarded by iiiagg at 6% per axmuzn.
Sd/’
Judge