Muniyappa S/O Late Puttappa vs P Nagaraj S/O Papanna on 24 July, 2009

is'; _ Sri "éi~{ finiva$é'ia'h~---A'dv.,)

 ' " No.25, Shankaranarayana Buiidéng,

IN "me HIGH com? or KARNATAKA AT aAmALicg2.é'k'%j%V"%%%%.:4 
% DATED THIS THE 2%" DAY OF JULY, zaosf' , '  '  &
BEFQRE   é   % V
THE HQBYBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEI'1;i3§5'§§.P¢§LA45§5V"%?.D«§; 
Miscgiggggous First Anggal   
SETWEEN:  M .' ' 

1. Muniyappa
S/0 Late Puttappa
Deleteci as per 'aha "   .  »
Order dated 28v.i'.«;2_C¥G8.:=__ ::    
2. Smtz. E-%aie¥a_.*nma"   '

W/9 Muniyawa"  , %
Aged abcut §;?..fyear$ ' 
Both arts, resid§;i§.Vat_»"'A    '
Marasurlviadfvala »*;:;:age,  
Aneka! taiuk, -   .. 
Bangaiare Diatritzii, 

 "  A ....APPELLANT/S

_ S/.,P.B.No.534o,

 



the accident ieaving behind aged parents,,_ who

may not survive leng enough to match_w¥i§ia.¢_t?:_e

higher multipiéer previded by 

Schedule, the court has to ofi""s'et.1ii':;Q&h _ia§Vg%a ' "

multipiier and baIanceV"§he:;'sa=.fné'xaéit§i s}§6Et..A£.ii'ej

expectancy of theTV_c*:--a.jmar3ts'ané 't héVt._'vpreHc%SeIy » "

has happgneé  in'ét'a«--r§t:V._'A'r:.f..:':"i-:a'%:'v~vLA  not committed
any error  of 'B', by
  and not the

   L        
(;g) L  on tha decision of Apex
A_ mu-:%%%é;~.T%m4%%¢a%ge sf RAMESH SINGH AND
z${Nc§f{f§4iER  '§'SvSATaIR smsn Am) ANOTHER,
  mg zebéjsc 1233, en support of the findings

1 -- T-. 3nA§iwronciusion ef the tribunal.

" cases wherein Sectien 163-43: of the Act is

  "~.ILfinfi:b§<ec¥,V'§t Es net necessary for the claimants ta establésh

 a:§";§y' fit sf negiigence on the part ef the driver of the

EM



vehi;npeeSet'Ec{ev.E§=.to_be "

determined in such cases, in terms gof.Se€end:"'S¢i:edu'ie_'

appended thereto, in the Act;'T'_It.._elsod;:.rdv§dee'V:f'M' hawerdinyg 

0%' general damages towards,____:ft2.r}_e::ai eke»-eTr1Zses,f% ices of

estate, loss of censertieni where'th"e_ 'eenefic§ary is spouse

and medicai EX?-3?..fiS€Sf"'" ed;-«ma: _exp'e'n_ses1vy."ihcurred before

death, not    therein.
  formula and itseif
stipulaies, the deceased by 1/3"', in
coesideretidn   :.e§2--;;§eeses which he wou£d have
inc:n;r_§:e'd utowerde..V_fijVeird§;aieing himseif, had been eiive.

A   §Ce'eip'i~~n_g in View the rivai cdntentiens, the short

'.[)'£§:i'f:td fee? 'e¥.:;n_sic¥eVration is:

.  the c!a%m is by a dependent/beneficiary,
Naihether, the seiectioe of multiplier she-aid be
with reference ta the age ef the deceased er the

surviving beneficiary? §
/

K»



14

12. Hence, the choice of multipiier shefid  

with reference to the age of the €3eceased."cH>£v'theev';=fir*3.ix{in'eg  V

beneficiary, which ever is higher.facts;~.tV!é<§"'vdec%§;a.{éd:_

was aged 25 years and his reether,  éged 

58 years. Life expectency ofAVb_Lehefi€ie_ry.'being icewer, the
tribune! is }ustified in  of 'S' in terms
of the Second'-. $che:3'u'i'e::'fé_"  Consequentiy,
assessmenfiaward passed by

the triburgai,'=i${f!a::g§ess§_,"'  *  

Ig_At'%';.e Vz'eeL§?§;,.VV_'TihVee'*-eppeai faiis and snail stand

dismissed.V'M.e caste,   S I C:

 .....  

% ‘C?<§j)'¥'