1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21*") DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATI§TT 'A;---:
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE-_H.S.KEM1§AN1"€A'
M.F'.A.NO.10853/.2066-.(1VI'Q
M.F.A.NO.1180_9_/'2-,O06_ (MV"p~. _ _i
M.F.A.NO.10863/2006"{3.QN) A
BETWEEN: '
NEW INDLMASSURANCEAVCOA.' I
REPRESENTED BY DIvIs'I0NALTAMA_NAGER,
4TH FLOOR, TOWER B}:-,0(?.K,,_ '
J.C. ROAD, - -_
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANT
(EY éR1.V1i;'JAiT5RAf5 'ASH -- AEV.)
AND--::"--- A
SMT.ASHA_vP}?ASAD,
' MAJOR .. '
.' SRI.AN';D,RATVIANNA
"Mr',J0.R.,
V I SARASWATHI
' " ~1\/VIAJOR
'ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.47/ 1,
157 FLOOR, 4?" TEMPLE STREET,
'BET?
2
PANDARI BAI COMPOUND.
KODANDARAMAPURA,
MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE -- 3
4. SRLSYED SALLALUDDDIN
MAJOR
S/O SYED MEHABOOB
R/AT STJOIIN QUARTERS,
BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT;3_
(BY SRLR. KRISHNA REDDY A 'FOR .1 A
NOTICE TO R-4 DISPENSED WITH,\],'.Q DATED 13.08.09}
THIS MFA IS F1LED_'jIUNDEIV-I .SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGA1NST TIIE JUDG'MENT,= AND}..AwARD DATED
20.06.2006 PASSED IN MV,C'--.NO_.545'1'/.2002 'ON THE FILE
OF THE XI ADDL. -.,JU1:;1'GE, "COUR'F.._OF":SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER, MA,CT',}r~'ME'I'ROPOLITAN' AREA, BANGALORE
[SCCH NO, '-1,AvgARD.INGV COMPENSATION OF
?I6,81,180/'-- INTERE$T_ @"6%; RA. FROM THE DATE
OF 1>ETITIONf1"I,LL
M.1«'.A.NO."1I,,§309(1T_1Q
:
1.
' 'A;GED,:'A1~3OUT :34 YEARS
~--w-,-/.O LATE. £{;S.PRASAD
A 2. S§I,N;"O,RAMANNA
AGEDAEOUT 71 YEARS
* S/Q LATE N.D.SEETIIARAMALAH
: 3".' V. SMTSARASWATHI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
" W/O N.D.RAMANNA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.47/ 1,
1ST FLOOR, 4T" TEMPLE STREET,
I/_W,,II_.J
JUDGMENT
These two appeals by the insurer
claimants are directed against the ”
judgment and award dated 20.62006′ V
No.545i /2002 on the file of the
Small Causes, Member, “Area, it
Bangalore [SCCH NVo’..1×2) ihereinaafter referred to as
‘Tribunal’ for short).
award 180/– with interest at 6%
p.a. fromrthieg datefiglof petition till realisation, as
against the of the claimants for a sum of
e__ on account of the death of the deceased
the road traffic accident.
-3.””v7l’hex_insurer claimed that though the Tribunal
it V’ hasidiscussed in the body of the judgment regarding the
‘ contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at
25%, it has awarded compensation to the claimants
without deducting any amount towards contributoiy
éw
to the right side of lorry, he has dashed against
offending vehicle and therefore contributory
has to be fixed at 50% on the deceased._.H,et l
our notice that though the
the body of the judgmer1t»e’regardin_’g” the
negligence on the part of the4l”‘deceased”a:t_ ‘.2150/(Vii, it has
awarded compensatieui’ _to_ gthhe’*V–_’ggel:airnants without
deducting any amount’V-towards_”»co’nt_ribiitory negligence
on the of fact, as per
the recitals rnahazar, it discloses
that the been parked properly on
the left side or tVV1″lC.’4VITtQEL4C€1:’_.if’1″‘OII1 the middle line marking.
That §:i.ridi*catedl it-was’ ‘parked towards the left side of the
road..at.,_ft. On account of the rash and negligent
drnririg by the deceased without properly
‘.V.maki’ngVlu:se4of the rest of the road which had been left
it ‘Xfiox_Vthe right side of lorry, he has dashed against
offending vehicle and therefore the contributory
negligence has to be fixed at 50% on the deceased.
,4/M
/
He further contended that the quantL:ni*.o. of
Compensation awarded to the claimants is on:wtliet’Vh_i_gher
side and it has to be reduced. Therefore.,__hjeprays i
modification of the impugned
the tribunal.
7. As against this, for the
claimants, interaiiag:_,,._..l:”Cor’ite3’_idle’d.Aland vehemently
submitted that negligence on the
part of Tribunal is not
sustainable offending vehicle was
parkedgin road loaded with iron beams
protruding._outsidellt.hebody of the trailer, unattended
and..iyithout any .s__1’g_n..al or indication or caution to the
other 1<oad:4usve.rs. The fact that the place where the
xl/ehicle parked was dark and the vehicles or any
T_othe:r .ob}ects in the front was not Visible are not in
A From the recitals in the panchanarna it is clear
that the deceased has applied brakes in order to avoid
accident and that is fortified by 50 ft. tyre marks found
on the road. This aspect of the matter has not been
%W
I0
looked into, considered by the Tribunal in fmin:g"*.the
contributory negligence. Further, he contended
compensation awarded to the claimants of i
dependency and conventional heladsis cj:.n1the.'iovvenisidre.'
and it requires enhancement modifying the
impugned judgment and award:
8. After careful suhmissions
of the counsel on both arise for
our follows :~
i) fixed on the
p’art–.oi; at ”25% and on the driver of
the offeiiding at 75%, is just and proper?
ii) ._%:«:.Wr:etherV”t’l’ie ,quantum of compensation awarded to
” ‘V .. vtheclairtnants is just and reasonable?
point No.1 : After careful perusal of
;’Exs,P1. P5, what emerges is that, charge sheet as per
has been filed against the driver of the offending
T “vehicle which is not in dispute. Further, it is crystal
it clear from the perusai of Ex.P2–sketch and _Ex.P4~
L.
12
perusal of the evidence on record, both oralldand
documentary, what emerges is that, had
driven his car slowly he could have avoided.
since it is evident from the records:.that;’–_on_’seeing’ the
truck being parked, he had triedlto ‘apply”b1fal;e is
evident from the tyre marks road’ extent of
about 50 ft. The T1’ibi_rnal ivrightlylooked into this
aspect of the matter andhas pthvellllfinding of fact
holding the part of the
deceasedp__ValsQl”‘tn;:the».,_e:§tleAn’t«.oiVV_2:S%, which is just and
proper; Afterlr’freaplpreciation of the oral and
documentary evider1ce,.’.’_i;rJe also concur with the said
of the Tribunal while fixing the contributory
negligencey :at°*2\5% on the deceased and 75% on the
driver offending vehicle and therefore,
C_interteren_ce by this Court is not cailed for.
Re.Poin.t No.2 :-
The occurrence of the accident and the resultant
it death of the deceased are not in dispute. The deceased
was aged about 35 years working as a Development
/4,¢¢—-«”””””
/Mr’
13
Officer in LIC drawing salary of ?30,836/- p.m.;’*plus
incentives. The learned counsel on both sid.e_s._’__’aftei’..p
evaluation of the material on record pointed..gorit
after deducting income tax andgvproifessilon
income of the deceased comes to’._?26,744′}*’«:..
accept the same. Out of deducted
towards the personal ..the”deceased and we
arrive at the net p.111. Having
regard to 35 years, by
applying appropriate multiplier
app1icalole–_ the compensation
towards llosstlofldepenrdeizcy at ?34,23,360/– {@7830 x
i’~Accordingly,y.we award a sum of ?34,23,360/-
“:2 towards_ Iossyglof dependency.
ll ” is not in dispute that the deceased was
Igthe solelllrlgrelad winner in the family. On account of the
it lffuntimely death of the deceased, the first claimant, wife
ofggdeceased, has lost her life partner at the young age
and claimants 2 and 3, parents, have lost the love and
affection of their son and their security, future hopes
yaw