High Court Karnataka High Court

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs S R S Travels Rep By Prop … on 9 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs S R S Travels Rep By Prop … on 9 September, 2008
Author: V.Gopalagowda & K.N.Keshavanarayana

THIS M.F.A. ES FILES ursmm SECTIGN 1?3{:) 0}? MS/’ ac?
AGAENST THE: wasmgm ANS AWARi’.} BATES 5.9.2995
PASSED IN MVC: N(‘).5811/2865 ON THE: PELEi 01? *mE:1-‘-1535
mm. JUSGE, MEMBER, MACT, came? GP’ SMRLL <;Az;%;<3z§',:~;V,

BANGALGRE, AWARDING A COMPENSATIGN GP' 52$.'1;:2','<}€a;_:;§§é,:_.;__ _

wmi iN"?E;RE§S'I' AT 6% PER ANNu:a41FR:§s:»:_' *:=HE r);x5:.;*£«}f<:}r«'

¥'E'f'E'f'IO?¥' T§LL- THE DA'I'§3 OF' DEZPGSETY

mzs MRA. IS (_Zt{)M}'I*é§§~~..§")§'~E_'I:%€}R' C}§:BI%}RS B E§E4'§RE THE
COURT THIS BAX, KESHaVAzV,$'RALY£;£'€A}__ Jj,v"».V{f)'E'aLiVEF€E}3 'FREE
FOLLOWLNG: V '– 'V ' "

This app€:al_ ;;;:;sL1:*a.j:§<§é fi§:;1§a11}? is diffiffitfid agaéxxst
the _}fI1(igm€fi'3}AE1;?.'1f.§. passed by {E16 1433
Ailditionai J"L1dg%:,4__4Cs3 11i*t:_{§fV.Sfiég}14{3auses and MAC'E', Baagaloze

m_M.V.C':~;2§.58.I_1/268:5; V

N95. 2 £0 5 hersin being the wife ané

'minor ¢f;J_}@1°en i–§;z}1:c Husshappa filed ciaim patition befant the

unifigfii. Section 1.56 0f tine Mator Vehicles Act seeking

'j..'r§;*'<;1r,n'];_§éi_::":.s:.'3L1fii§7f;:I1 fer the {ieath cf said Huchappa in the manor

' accident that occurred at about 00.28 hams 0:2

The ciaim petitiozz wags; comesized by the appeléani

Eierein. After the _partie$ ieci Evidence, the Tri}iru'na1, an

assessment 01" the oral and documentary eviaience am rescarzi, by

the judgment under appea}, axzswerezd the issue regardifig

%/

years. The accident in questierx occurred 0:1 8.5.2005. As per

the Law existing in 2605, the deceased weuld have reiixed

age of 58 years if he had not met untimely deaizh. Judirsié}

ef the fact may be take}; that new the State of 1:33 _& V'

increased the age of retireznent to 60 yee11~s. ' ' Ov1i"«ih~i'1Es–

deceased had another 12 years of_.,<s_e1'viee;.A 'i'–11erefer€.~;,. :11 §;':8.Zf"3_I1 {'s'%'.

be said that the saiary cf the c1eeeas:€§£.¥;V:.%;a70u1h«:’A’:’z’:;er.’);:1″:,1_L_af:_1Vif’ie1<:1'eme£1ts apart
from periedieal §gaee:»:every* possibility of the
deeeaseci mevfiig least: by {me grade. It
is new Wei} ee't1;;"Ees:f, prespects are also require
te be taken _1j.ot:e' average menthiy income 0?
me-e'~ 51_:€3Cf3¢:%§{lELi3€il,.'\.:AV:}3fiI'$O]'§1"xfifii' —- -the gmrpese of computing 1933 of

defieefideticjga the Tribunal has net taken that aspect

ceaseseicierafiieig; end has proceeded is compute less ef

_ '_T'e€1epe:;de11e*3f~.e:;_ the baais ef the gross eaiary of the deceased

Aefifiefing amount payable towards prefessienai Tax.

"'V.f?1_:e'1;efeV';:'e, we see :10 ground te interfere with the metheci

V ' –».a§iGptefi by the Triburxai. The azzetfnod adopteii by the Tribuxaai is

(2{)I1S0iE1fiIiC€ Wi'a:h the principiee ef law laid dawn E33' the Apex

e

Cmxrt in the case of National Insuratme (29. us. Indira
sr-suastaaa' and others mpmea £11 (2003) 2 sec __?63,

Therefmre, {here is me substance in the €301"1?;€I1Ei8I3_j*s';§f~. ?,h§

appeslianii that net saiar}? ought ts have been 'A .

purpose sf C0mput;ing g 1033 czf d6p€I1{i§3:1e::}.r, }§a§:1:§ .ge§gaid L;

the fact that the deaeased Eefi behind wife: a;.;i7;s;i;. :1i3..ifiO1?'CE;iiV3i:{1E-1fé}??.;_:

E116: Tribunai has righily Vx:if1t:;§11ct'::*:_r;1v t.eward$ the
persenai expenses azfgi §1ai:;té:i1a3}i}:é_:'Qit'vL.'.dé:%.é;sed. There is
:10 error com.mit'g€:–:3§"»v%§3*:fiifi;¢ regard. Having
regard is another 12 years of
Sewice, the ..spiit multiplier eveived by tfhfi
Divisien B€22.cii case of Union af India and
ofgggrs wag: 31.3. and others reported. in ILR

ifiéjfl 3'f1'8fiS-}~:féi€}€S :20: arise. Thexefere, we see no ermr

Z'i§b'{113a1 in quantifying the loss Sf dE§€1":§ €"Z1C}'

Rs. 1 1,'{}4,§v–i§4/» -:1' Having regard in the fact, that the Tribtmai

. z 1ut,1_;a3<é11.. intia CU1T1Sid€;f&tiQI1 the future pmspecf; ef the

"'– €¢3¢eaS3ii',' ' V'é'h;iif3 considering the moutiifiy income cf the

Vdxéfiieavsewd, we are of the opinien that {ha Tribunai has rightiy

L""«f;1§s'%é:r€i€d Rs,f3{),GO{}/- towards 1033 at' prcspecmgixci Rs.:3G,§{}8/-

"towards 1033 of estate. Eiavizig regard to the facts ané

cir”‘~IV’_’Ei3;”.;'<§':. :.
with the judgmerlj: of the Tribunai, as _b"1MlCh, ti'¢1crei: rig u

graimds ta admit this appeal.

8. Accordingly: the appeal is ci’i31ii’i:sse(ih. in

deposit be transferred to the r:@i1c§:r::e»ii”‘I1§J:>::1Viia.};.

judgfié

56%}

mags