MFA NO. 7873 . 03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT ' ' v _
DATED THIS THE 12"' DA.-'V613'. -_
PRESENT,L L 2 % . .k %
THE H()N'BLE ms
THE HONBLE MR JIiS'f§€E 1{;z$:V.K§§;s1i;avANARAYANA
M1sCELL&zgN1a;_~g)m{_;_§m3;§$*i?i%,;¢1§1!"r;;;¢§_1_;Vwcsfisésrzeos (MV)
BETWEEN:
1.
Prabhakar, -------- _ .,
Slo Shivanvanjachargr, M
Ar§e¢£40yéa.rs;' ' '
3 cross,2""~M=ai;.,.%V --.%,'%
Mysore Road,B.a_pajinagar, "
Bangalore-«-26. V " V'
' Viv.' .' Q .....
Agfll ai_>Qixt. 3:5 .yeaf;rsV
.' A
' D10 Prabhaksgr
, .. .. 'A.g"ed years.
'Af»p¢" ~ 'ii Nos.2 & 3 are mama' rs
{L L " 9' "Bangalore-26.
A' f "I'i'1ey;are represented by their father &
T flatur-al guardian Appellant Ne.1
'Rfat 3"' Cross, 2"" MaJ'n,Mysore Road, Bapnjinagar,
.. APFELLANTS
Smt Bhushani Kumar, Adv)
QM
BEA No. 7873 . 03
ANI):
1. National Insurance C0.L£d.,
No.64, Sathi Complex,
Mksitm Read,
Bangalore---27.
By its Branch Manager.
2. M.Nanjunda,
S10 Eeranna,
No.U-1 1, Krbhna Block,
Seshadripuram,
Ba11galore--20. V .
(By Sri P.B.Rgj1y'A; fi mg} i' ' %%
(R-2 noticeivdkpensesévwitfig) _ '
This Nfisceflanefims zappeal is filed u/s 173(1) of MV
Act against t'héLjl1étigeIi«_:1ti. an.d"_.'award df;.21.7.03 passed in MVC
N0.17I3I9_9_on fileof ilk. XVI Addldttdge & MACT, Court of
Cfaggrses; Bangaiune (SICCH-14) partly aliowing the claim
I-fpetition' forv cempeméfibn and seeking enhaxwement of
is' Fhst Appeal coming on for
L»'AA"""ADl\»IIS'SI01§I-313$ day, KESI~iAVANARAYANA.J., delivered the
ft-ii;9"'ing%= r.
JUDGMENT
% * Enough this matter is listed for admission, by consent of
the Counsels, the matter is heard for firm} disposal.
2. The husband and two minor children of one Suit
Umagewri who were the claimants in MVC 1713199 on the file of
MFA Ho. ‘7B’?3. O3
MACI’, Bangalore City (SCCH44) are in appeal
Court seeking enhancement of compensetton.
3. The claimants filed they _
compensation of Rs.6 Iakhs for theléeeth or gm the e t
motor vehicle accident that 611 near
Dwaralu gate on ‘According to the
claimants, the troupe called
Some Melodies’ to Bangalore
along tempo, after attending to
eras driven by its driver in a
rash and negfigexzt near Dwaralu gate, the tempo
~.dashed~:..ageies_t lorry as 3 result of it, the deceased
V”-susdt£a’i:1ed-V and died at the spot. It is the further
eoaitehzitiony j claimants that the deceased was coming
_ ‘ toonth on an average from the ave-cation as singer.
The petition was contested by the insurer of the
d tempo. It was contended by the insurer that the accident
A A” “eves not due to the negligemte of the tempo driver but on the other
W
DEA No. 7873 . 03
hand, it was an account of the negligence of the lorry driver in
parking the lorry without any signal. After the trial, thefiehteaet
on assessment of the oral and documentary _
finding that the accident was selely dueto the oft’ ” =
tempo driver. The Tribunal took the n¢;utis1r£:.al’.il1eeirae’ * sj:_Attte7
deceased at Rs.15000/~– holding that there is ‘
evidence to establish the earning o_l_’_ out of
the said notional income, her personal
expenses and by adepting::nultij;lie2*.pf_ the less of
aependettey”i’at the Tribunal added
Rs.23,9(}0V}-. thunder heads and awarded total
eomiaeasatieniébf }:2s.1.,”:’33,A{i9{l)}’i-Lt The Tribunal directed the insarer
J V’ ef lllétfetxdfzxg pay the entire comyensation amount
at 8% 13.3. frem the date of petitior: till the
¥s.ii? Dissatisfied with the quantum of the award, the
Tilastpeflattts/elaimatats have presented this appeal inter alia
.’:.ep1__{tending that the award of the Tribunal on the head of loss of
W
BEA NO. 7873. O3
dependency is on the lower side and the Tribunal ought
assessed the income of the deeeaseti atleast at Rs.300(}{§”peif %
6. The respondent No.1 is its i
Notice of the appeai to 11.2 is dispensedIevithi.:.4éz :
7. We have heart! the 0nVvi$e.th’:$iiies.
8. As noticed earlier, the vvreceirded the
finding that the accident of the tempo
driver. £§een”q’iiestiomed by the owner or
the i11sn1’erot” ef the judgement under appeal
imiieatee thattiae pnliee criminal case against the temyo
” djiveifin ‘the—-accident in question, In View of the fact
.V”ti_in£t: tithe “pf the Court below regarding actionable
negfigence been questioned, there is no need to go into that
‘aspect oftne matter in detail.
V. The next question that arises for our consideration is
. .. i/fh§the }wfimfi are entities! for any enhancement ?
BEA N0. 7873 . 03
expenses appears to be on the lower side.
circumstances, we hold that Rs.40,00Gi– in all K
awarded under these coxiventional }1¢:»a:£.iVs»r;A.”V”»I1′:I”1i’i.s;~,”i._l11e’1
entities! for total compensation _o_f Afhé ,
award of Rs.1,83,900/- passed byiiieiVv:.f1’z’ibr1rifii;.V7Ij}xue’:T1;i%;uiial has
awarded interest at 8% tx; tHiAA1eVAVVfacts and
circmnstances of the case the deceased
3188 193? 119115116 net inclined to
interfere with es “ewe:-&ed”‘by the Coizrt below.
Acif<)r¢i=3ng{3?,"'V'iE§e.::'is snowed in part with costs
eriiiaiicing the».__eei1i§i2;ssfia;§{..'i'to R,s.3,47,200f- as against
iii1s,1,s3,ciic)–,i'sTise eeispeisetien amount shat} be paid by the
*9? t!i¢'~0i'f§:fifl.mg vehicle to the appellants together with
v'nzte1u'e'si.':a£: ii-em the date of petition an the date or
payznent.a"'f.hésg1ii£}unt shall be tlepesited within eight weeks. The
b
ME'A No. 7873 . O3
directions regatfiing apportiemnent and disbm'sem§iit"
amount issued by the Tribunal remains u2;;§!tered.; " = .1: '-
}:??_