1.4'. V. '_ Bonifnasandra. .....l__ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE Iem DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009'IO»-EV.' PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.3uSTIcE K.'SREEDf:jfA|?ERAQ AND V _ n _ THE HON'BLE MR.JUST_:IvC,E_ RAVI ,MALI'r:4_ATjH'--VV MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APE?E~.A.TQ'NO';~.3644 'O-F.20.04(Mv) BETWEEN : New In1dia'*ASsuranfCeCOTr'fl_[i5'"any'Ltd., Represented by the---.VD--eVpLI_ty'«!'J1anager M.G.ROad,"tBan.ga|ore}_ " Representing New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ' ' " ...APPELLANT Sri».R;~3aiO;5'ra_kash, Advocate) AN 1. Smtv"§AnIIradha, _ _Aged- about 27 years. '».M:Onika Aged about 5 years. Munivenkatappa, Aged about 58 years. 4/ 4. Smt. Chinnamma, Aged about 52 years. 5. Kumari Indira Aged about 20 years. 15' Respondent is the wife,' 2,_'_"' res"p.ondent;""
is the daughter, 3″ and 4″‘-._,,4respondent’s-.0, A V’
are parents and St” respondentisgthe ‘
sister of the deceased Pa pa-i’mai,”– 0
Respondent No.2 is r._ninorf
Represented by 1″ Resp’on’d.eht’
Aii are residing at N§o.100’/6,..4 .
9″‘ Cross, Z20″?/iainv Road’, ”
BJTM.l”SE@eg_ ,,fagg=’ *
Madiva|a,–,B’a.n;ga|ore.«.. .. ” A
6. Abc’._ui Khad’e*r,_.,i_Vi’ajo’i*,_
S/0 Abdui Sukojo-ii, ”
R/at E5o_mmariahaii’i,_E5’eg’u’r Road,
Hosur Road,» Banga.ioi=e~*.’
== « ‘” ‘ -RESPONDENTS
“”(ByV.V0Sri i*~i;’Jai’ip{ai<ashWReddy, Advocate, for R-1)
.0 fiieci under section 173(1) of MV Act
against the'.._3_u.o'gment and award dated 09.01.2004 passed
in MVC..__'i\i'o~_.4'299/02 on the fiie of the Member, MACT–V,
f_'Additionai_ Judge Court of Smaii Causes, Bangalore. SCCH
_i\£.o.S, awarding compensation of Rs.7,65,000/- with
~._'inter"e«st at 6% p.a. from the date of petition tiii deposit.
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day,
it -SREEDHAR RAO 3., deiivered the foiiowing:–
Gk
3UDGMENT
One Papanna aged about 32 E1
Bar 8: Restaurant as a Manager .:i'i'evd::=inV..a'–_mo't0r
vehicle accident. The wife :§m..d' rnir1.oi" iiv§i'rz.§g*¥'jrt'er,
parents and sister "V f«é..I_Ved sieekiniig
cmnpensation. The assessedflthcéi income 0f
the petitioner at awarded
com pe n satifon of Rs'; ;_ "
2._A1″i1.’_heiu3V.V0c.cu«ifrence of the accident, the
negligV_e’ncce’ of the offending vehicfe,
cjoverage V0af’i’n”sui”ance are not in dispute. The ap;::eaE
orulywto the iegality of the quantum sf
=.i’_<:Q1m';)*é:nS.AV.Ert%"en. r
i .. It is the cententiorz of the insurer that the
Vit:,empensa$:ion awarded is excessive. The Enceme
assessed at Rs.5,QOO;'- for a Manager empicxyed in a
Bar 8: Restaurant weuid be reasonabie and the
assessment of income by the Tribunal is sound and
55/
proper. The Tribunal has deducted
personal expenses which appears to"be~–.i.n'c.:§'rr_eclt'.~
per unit system 1/5"' is 'l0
personal expenses, iii
benefit of the dependaniigg' 16 will
apply. The entitled
to just comp_ensatAiVQ_n'_:c)Vf x 12
x 16) In addition, the
wife ':3' sum of Rs.25,G{}O/-
A’ ‘vj’é_QET>_jS:’ n U m. The a ppel la r’:?:3-
petifipnere entitled to a sum cf
P5s;’?._S,C34.{V3§../f’ibvxrarcls loss of expectancy; Rs;.1{),G(}G/-
_ “£0v\}f=§’l-“dVVs~.fu:1e:’aI expenses.
‘I.n.f~”all, the appellants-petitioners are entitled to
.A _a’ic’G%npensat%on of Rs.8,28,000/~ as against a sum
Rs.7,6S,O{}€)/~ awarded bylthe Vribunai. The
Tribunal has granted a Eesger cempensatien. Henge,
the appeal rm reecluctéon Es dismigseci.
-l/
The amount in–deposit to be transferred
‘tribunal for payment.