IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 271% Day of August. 2010 'T T' BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUS'i'ICE B. SVREENNJXSE' L. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL N o,92.49 oF 2,o0»8 " BETWEEN: 1.
North West Kamataka _ I _
Road Transport Corporation;
Gokul Road.,’.Hub1iV,~~».f» V»
Self InSura:1oe_’Fu1§1d _. _ .
By its Managing Direotor , ”
By :ts;’ch:e–£ Lav;z__Offijof3_r’;~. _ . ‘
2. Nofth West Kéi;{‘hataka
T?.ranSport’.:Corp.orat1on
Belgaum Divisloia,
Beigaxim. ‘ V
By its ..Di’v.iSiona1. C’on’1;ro11er
A. R.epresén_ted.1:4y its
, Ch1ef Law Qfflcer.
" ---- ..APPELLANTS
Renuka, Advocate]
ANY):
V. 1.. SV'ee¢tharr1rna
"aw/o Late H.Sathyappa
Aged about 45 years.
2. Prashanth
S / 0 Late H. Sathyappa
Aged about 29 years.
3. Am}
S/0 Late H. Sathyappa.
Aged about 31 years.
All R/0 Subashnagar,
Sagar Town, ; ' '~ , «.
Shimoga District. .-..RESP”ONDENTS” 0′
(By Smt. C.G. Asha Devi. AdVocate”for’ No.1 to 3)
This Misce11aneous–.__Fi’~rst–‘_Ap§peai.._i’s_”filed under Section
173(1) of MV Act against the’j11Vdgment’A.arid Award dated
01.04.2008 in MVC No.1.?.,8,./”2006 .Vby”‘”theafidditionai Motor
Accident Claims.-Tribun;a1, Sagar.”«..praying. to set–aside the
judgment and award. dated” 01.,O4–[20.08 made in MVC
No. 1 78 / 200:6’ Vthe :~_Add_1ti_on al ‘Aedcidents Claims Tribunal,
Sagar and etc» it ‘ . V
This Misee–!1aneou.s’Fi’rst Apoeal coming on for hearing
this day”. eouri: deiivered tii.e”fo11oWing:
._j;1i’iiGMENT
appeal the claimant for enhancement of
~..cornt5ensation=aiis);arded by the Tribunal.
A 2.,
#3,. _ For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to
/_as_b_t:1f:ey are referred to in the claim petition before the
ffribunal.
4. The brief facts of the case are:
On 8.1.2006 when the deceased was
Qualis on the left side of the road and proceeding K
Hubli on P.B.Road near Shine way; the
driver of the KSRTC bus bpearinagx Registratiori ,
22/F/1364/$1401 came in and eneglilg:’ent~–;VVrnan’ner
and dashed against Toyota Asadav-..res:’§u1t, he
sustained injuries and -,.;g}uries on the
spot. Wife and ‘petition before
the Motor Sagar seeking
coInpen.sa’t’ion.A:’o”f Tribunal awarded a
sum of 4 “interest at 6% per annum.
5 3. _AS ldtnereieis ‘dispute regarding death of the
d ‘depce’aCsed’Ain”i’ a roadvtradfiic accident and liability of Karnataka
Stated ‘ dvlfrajnsport Corporation, the only point that
rernainsvfor consideration in this appeal is:
“Whether the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and proper or does it call for enhancement ?”
%,.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties
and perusing the judgment and award of the ‘I’ribuna1,V’i~_a11j1
of the View that the compensation awarded by A’ %
is not just and proper, it is on the higher side andjtherefore; V’ ”
it is deserved to be reduced.
7. The deceased Sathyao;:ia”*xyas years
at the time of his deathgin as”evideEnt from
P.M.Report ~– Ex.P4 and where the
date of birth is,Vm:ention;ed;’:’ are his wife
and two ‘~.of:’their’contention that the
deceased month by working as
a driveff I =Ci.aimant as PW.1 and have
produced hishdsalaryaacertifieates at Ex.P.6, Ex.P.8 and R9.
_ t to P.9x’r’e–veva1 the salary of the deceased at the time
“his retireinent will be Rs.16,391/– . According to EXP8,
the date of his death in the accident i.e..
–g 8.1:200′(3: .is’Eis.8,287/–. Salary which he was drawing at the
it tiny; ofvvideath is shown in Ex.P8 and that has to be taken
“‘ixjV1to”A’consideration. His gross salary was Rs.8,287/~–, of
“which Rs. 100/ — is deducted towards Profession Tax. So, his
gross salary becomes Rs.8,187/~. At the time of his death,
he was aged about 51 years and nothing can be addedpptorhis
salary towards future prospects. Multiplier applicable.fto_’__iii§:A’
age group is 11. The claimants are wife and t\I.ro.V.1′:najor:Vson3. ‘
Even if two major sons are ignoifed,:..one%4third’
deducted towards personal e2~:pensesf’._Accordingly; ioss of 0′
dependency works out to Rs.7,20′;’«%iS€:/ ~ ($211).
8. In addition toRthaa’t’. zis entitled to a
sum of Rs. 10,0V0£.Jl/-._ Rs. 10,000 / —
towards transportation of
dead body love and affection.
Thus, he is entitiefd-»”fo11o’wing compensation :-
Loss of’ dependency Rs.’7,20,456/~
V :LoTy’e.__and affection Rs. 10,000 /»~
0 V or consortium Rs. 10,000 / —
V A estate Rs.10,000/~
. ‘Transportation of dead body Rs. 10,000/–
0 6; ‘Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/ ~
‘ 7] Conveyance Rs.5,000 g —
TOTAL Rs.7,70,456/-
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and’-
judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified toihe’ _
stated herein above. The claimant is entit1e’q’~».. aitotal a
compensation of Rs.7,70,456/~ rounded 7 .l
as against Rs. 12. 1 -4;, 544/ «and the .cornlp.ensatio1*1
the Tribunal is reduced by RS.4,4L£V;’O%14r_X –. lfheiolairnants are
entitled to total compensation of /– interest
at 6% per annum from the ..date till the date
of realisationg
1G.” ‘dir=ected—-to_ deposit the said amount
after deducting lwhfa.teVe4rt’=afi1ount already deposited within
two month’s._y_fiornl of receipt of a copy of this
judgiiient’ , ___the compensation awarded in this
appeal,..V_Rs.GyL00,_000/– is ordered to be deposited in any
/’scheduled bank for a period of 9 years
‘V renewable once in three years in the name of the first
lll_’s».,ciaii:nantl, with a right to withdraw interest periodically for
~ ‘herd rnaintenance and welfare. The remaining amount with
interest is ordered to be released in favour of the claimants
in equai proportion. No order as to costs.
nv/–