IN THE IIIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DHARWAD.
DATED THIS THE 1813* DAY OF FEBRUARY 2<);o.'
PRESENT : III I
'1'1~~1E HON'BLE MR.JUSTIQ13"N.--K,PAIIIIIIII if
AND I I _ I I _
THE 1~~1o1\z'ELE MR.
Miscellaneous First Apt)?-',E%I
MFA CROSS DB3
EETWEENQ
NATIONAL 41NsURA.N.cIE'_CQM.?ANY
LIMITED,"VBYAA 1'1"s'=D1"vI SIGNAL MANAGER,
DIv1s10NAL~.OI«'I?f1C..E,'-. " "
V 17'32,RAMDEVG_ALLI,B'fiJLGAUM
" " _ HERE1N,REPREsEE'rED BY ITS
I EEGIDNAI, OFFICE
NO"144..,sHm3EARAM COMPLEX
RGAD, BANGALORE
BY ITS A1333/IINISTRATIVE OFFICER APPELLANT.
(BY sE§.::H'.T.JAGADEEsH FOR SR1. A.M.VENKA'i'ESH, ADV.)
ASRIISHARANAYYA
5,/5
,,,,,,,,,,
5',
Ix.)
SHARANABASAAYYA
MAJOR S /O. CHANDRASHEKHARAYYA
METI, OCC SERVICE IN H.E.C.O.M.,
R /O RADHAPURPETH
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELG-AUM
2. SMTSAVITRI
MAJOR W/0. SHARANAYYA -
SHARANABASAYYA
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. RADHAPURPETH,
TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELGAUM
3. SRISHIVANAND 5 _ 2,
S /O. BASAVARAJ SAGASEETTII 2. j.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, '- _ :
OCC: BUSINESS" -
R/O_YANAMRE'm_-' _
TQ: RAMDURG, DfI_S§T:'B41:_LGAU.Ni if; . '
_ .... ' =:.,,_ _ ~. _ _ I. RESRONDENTS
(BY SR1. JAICwADIS1'ij"I'PA"1'1.L, AD_v;}"
THIS MI'S(:ELLPINEOU;3"'--FIIQST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION _173(1)"~VOF._MV7ACT' AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD.I§;)A'I'E3D SE13/06 PASSED IN MVC NO.1S7;OA OR THE
TEE..E'cIv1L~.;UDGE (SRDN), MEMBER, ADDL.IvIAcT,
SAUNDATTI; _STf1TING AT RAMDURG, AWARDING A
COMPE3NSAT1_ON"~Q'F. RS.8,85,OO0/M WITH FUTURE INTEREST AT
THE'.RAjT'E"*0E'T_t3%.*'P.A. EROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
' " '-.,_REAL1SATION.' -- I.
5'
'\JJ
EN MFA CROS OBJECTEON NO.3()2 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
1. SRLSHARANAYYA SHARANABASAAYYA,
S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAYYA MET},
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC SERVI__C.E3,__
R/O. RADHAPURPETH A '
TQ: RAIVIDURC: DEBT: BELGAUM '
E'-J
SMTSAVITRI, w/O. SHARANAY'I--'A @ SRARAI\:AISAiS.A_yfyA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. RADHPURPETH *
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: I3}3lL{}A_Uh:e;I" 1
_ OBJECTORS.
(BY SRI.JAGA.DI«S_HPAi:IL¥A'Dv,) '
AND
I. SR1. SIv:IIVAI\EA'N£)_S;'(3. 'BA~S_A'f_A_'RAJ SAGASHETTI
AGED ABOUT 35 _
Occ:BUSI,N'ESS,-,_R/O. IIANAMRETH
RAMDURQE E.LGA_U:IrI "DIST
THE5:D1V1SEONA1;'MANAGER,
"NATIONAL INSRUANOE CO. LTD.,
' DWISIONAL.._OE_FIcE,
' 1";&32,* RAMDEIJOALLI,
B'i€".L--CrAU'M"_;'~.. ' RESPONDENTS
; (R5-NO~TICE DISRENSED WITH, SR1. HEJAGADEESH FOR
SRI.A[M_,VE3N§{ATESH, ADV FOR R2).
l”‘VI”IA§I1″‘S MFACROSS OBJECTION IN MFA 6952/2006 FILED
‘UN_D_E§R ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
/,2
AND AWARD DATED 31/3/O6 PASSED IN MVC No.18?/O4 ON
THE FELE OF THE CML JUDGE (SRDN), MEMEBER,
ADDLMACT, SAUNDATTI, SITTING AT RAMDURG,..”‘PA«R’F.[,Y
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETmoN FOR COMPENE–AT;Q}.I.;~
SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF’ COMPENSAfI’iON,V’*«i A-
THE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALAND’_1v;.EALC.rI€O.SS
OBJECTION ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING TN1%S1.DAY__:”‘~SR1.K._
N.K.PA’E’IL J., DELIVERED THE EOLLOWENGE
JUDGMENé§_”p’ V
This is an appeal mg crOsAs–objector On
account of the death of the @ Anand in a
road traffic accident judgment and
award dated 18.7/2004 on the fiie of
Add}. MACfr;’,””Safi;:gda££§”‘ §t~».f.}f2a1–fi§i_i’;’14g:: The Tribunal in its
impugned has awarded a Sum of
Rs.8,85,OQQV/– vvfth 8′?/aaVVp’v:erA’r;1nni;1m. The compensation awarded is
;_d’iSprOpO’ijt1onate, aI]dHE’}{C€:SSiV(i and it requires reduction as
conter’tdedeAb3§«th’eeinsurer, whereas the crosS–Objector contended
‘ V7-.___,that the’cOrnp«en5sj_atiOn awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and
h*~..__i4t’vrec1uires. enhancernent and hence this appeal and cross-
* ob;é.:§c;ion~.._ /A/
2. The brief facts of the case are ~
The cross-objectors/the claimants are parents…Vofui’t.the
deceased Sri. Anandayya Anand, contending that,
was an electrician aged about 22 years doing electri–cal’:”‘at;’or.I:<: under–«..
the KPTCL after obtaining necessary licenisefrozniijurisdicotional
competent authority of the StateV.i'Govern'n'_1e'i:t aI1VC1'ii"'8t]:SiO.Oi;l;,tfi.iiI'lg."'.'
agricultural land he is a bread earneriiiin' the farnilyraiid account
of the death of the deceased, clairnaints/cross».
objectors has been jeopardiseidatheir'_hrii:)e.5.:atidinsecurity has been
deprived. On the at on 26/11/2003,
the accident has road, due to the
rash and vehicle the deceased
sustained grieviousi to the injuries. On
account of the of'V–the._ideciieased the appellants No. 1 and 2,
:ai1~..¢r a'Jt1_(3f'I1T_iQAtl'if:r have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
Mo'to1'=i\ifehic'les':'5tct:cl~airning total compensation of Rs. 37,30,000/~
i iii'-._agains't insured and offending owner of the vehicle.
ii€__The_'said rnatter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal.
'IA_'he_"Triibu.na.l after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary
_e'Vider;§ee and other relevant material on the file has allowed the
6
same in part awarding a sum of Rs. 8,833,000/~ with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till of
realisation.
3. The said compensation awai=,ded:…by
disproportionate and excessive and liable°’to be”i- reduced Vasfl
contended by the insurer, whereas thieliclairnan-tscontended that
the compensation and it
requires enhancement have thought
fit to file cross–objee’tioi§.t:tiseel<i1i_ngi the insurer and the
claimant felt ijresent appeal and cross-
objection.
4. Weiihave tlieriearned counsel appearing for
appeiiantsiand cros»s_-objectors for a considerable lcI’1gEl’1 of time.
after’ caI5eful””e’»’al’uation of the entire original records available on
theiile of the impugned judgment and award, what
n”lernerges’—.tis thatilit is not in dispute on account of the injuries
” ‘:)s’u_sta_ined i’ri.V__t*ne accident the said Anandayya succumbed to the
deceased was aged about 22 years was young,
‘e-nergeitic and enterprising doing electrical contract work in
K
:5
different places after having qualified and obtaining necessary
license. The Tribunal has committed an error in assessisilégthe
income of the deceased at Rs.l0,000/» per I1’1()”IfV1:f}’]”‘~.($&f-i.tfiC1lltfiiN’
assigning any valid reasons nor the appellants a.
authenticated documents to establish that i:ico;:?ie:.p.oi’
Rs.l0,000/– per month from different sources’. Exceptiprodiiieirigiifi
Ex.1:»9, io, 11 and Ex.P–12 to 20 he”‘wa_§:td’¢inig§ electrical
work in different places j,i_iI-lavingvvireévard to his
age, occupation, with referenceiitoi we can safely
assess the income of / — per month
to meet the 1/3?” (i.e. a sum of
Rs.l,666/i- towards personal
expense of deceasediincome comes to Rs.3,334/–, the
younger age of the Vparpe-nts–._nia3iz be taken into consideration, the
iniotcher .abo1it’42…g;ears as on the date of accident. The
ap’propriate applicable is 14. In the light of the
judgrrientlof Court in case of (Sarala Verma and others Vs.
4°7.__pe.zVm’ Trdnsporiiborporation and another) reported in 2009 ACJ
and accordingly we redeterrnine the loss of dependency at
_Rs: S’,§eo,”1_12 (Rs.3,334 x 12 x i4}. Further, the Tribunal has
M ”__,..w””
…~»-r~””
(iii)
(iv)
{0}
9
Out of the compensation awarded Rs. 6,05, 1 12/
Rs.3,00,000/– with proportionate interest shall be
deposited in the name of 2″” claimant in a..___
Nationalised Bank/ Scheduled Bank for a
of five years renewable for another periodof :”
years.
The 2″”-‘ respondent/ claimant;’No. pe:¢rnitted’lta”–..¢ 79 ‘
withdraw the interest
Further a suni of with
proportionate invterzest’ ibév–_ldAepo.sited in the
name of. V I3′ in a
INationalised:5f5’a.nk,{;’Schedaled Bank for a period
ofjive lyearsV”r'<enewal3lVe for another period of five
_ years… The'v.15?*-respondenvclaimant is permitted
V i withdraw V interest periodically.
vi???) _
amount of Rs. 1,05,112/ — with
i proporaonate interest shall be released in equal
l , proportion in the name of respondents No. 1 and
immediately on depositing the remaining
I up/"
5
hnm/
compensation amount by the appeZEanf~In.surance
Company.
Draw the award accordingly.
&ߤ {%%
%
.JuDeE