IN THE HIGH comm' oz? KARHA'1'AKA AT "
IIATEB" mas mm nth an or HOVE19E13E ii--::2@{.¥$V %% ' '
PRESENT I
THE Hozzmm né!R.J'U'BTICE v';a;ia1:e Seenappa
R/a.No.3i,"?th Cress
x Ashh}: Nagar, _BaI1galo3:*e. ...Ap§e11a.:t;ts
(By Sri R.C}:2andrashekhar, Adv.)
Tim Diazisioixal Manager
KSRTC Depot, Chikkabaliapur Depot
K-2333.? Bist. ....Resp<:mdents
(By Smt.Pra¥:nha Murthy, Adv.)
\\k/
abeut 6.45 13.11}, when the deceased was xvaiting..jfej§'f«tif:e
bus at KSRTS Temperamfy bus stand, '{6} *
to Hesur, at that time a KSRTC«W=.3:1:er '
RegI1.Ne.KA 28 F 242 came in ".3,'
manner and dashed against ..ee1eee7ae.e(i« of " L'
which he sustained g1ieyousAeifije;-iee to
the same. Hence they tier: before the
MAST, I3a:1gg*JC%§e:,j'--fe1§-;A_ greiit ef 125.10
lakh to be awageeaan t}1eif'£e§§'oiiLij. '
T:)'1:)eei* behalf of the appeliants,
appe11a31t'Ne.1 <1i1eI'se}f as }E'.W.1 and also get
«_ exereieed twe "rne;fe_Awitr1esses as P.W.2 and 3 and got
'af!oei3;;"I;_ents Ex.P.1 £012 in justification of their
'eleirfi. a hand on behalf of the respondents,
eneeziiitgeeees was examined as R.W.1 and get marked
VA éeeexment Ex.R.1. The Tribunai after considering the
inatexéal eviéenee pleeed before it has allowed the claim
petitien in part awarding compensation of
R343, 16,00{)/- together with interest at ‘?% 13.3, from the
date of petition till the date of deposit; of the
V
allow the appeal by awarding just and reasonable
compensatian by aiiawing this appeal
5. It is not in dispute, that even 0t;*1gf:_1fi?¢*.i:$t:: K V’
from the nixaterial evidence piacgid §) r1′ :’ez;01’ti–
accident in question occurred due Ate) fish jnegligiefflt
driving of the vehicie in questi€:z1:”Ai3y_ itSvCi’I’.i’3{T €:3’£8Iid a case
in C’r.No.4()/2002 ..to agéaiiist him.
Further, it is H91; in éivsgaiigtc: died in me
said road 11% of rash and
negligent d::yL+1g:Ak%ofLV”1he”‘T;$’:§¢fidmg {remcle by its driver.
The dQcu;nc§£1T’i:’s-V ‘$9 5 _’ clearly discloses the fact:
that acc§ir§..(a nt due to fault: of the
d1*ixz{:%:.;t” étjafffiliéf veijiéie in (mestien. Therefore, the finding
“§31″V.f$;1ct_;”:#?éca:z§rd:gc¥ by the Tribufiai 511 this mgard, that,
x'(17l_f’iV”6%Ci’Vi”‘A (if Water tanker was rash and negligent in
V . c1I*i§9i:1g4%”t.:1’ie’*{}ehicle anti caused the accident is based on
K x ‘ V:p1″0p;;er éppreciafion of iegal evidence on record.
9
(:3. With regard to the quantum of campensation
awarded by the Tfibunal in the impugxeti judgment is
concerned accgrdring to appellants the decea$,ed::’jt¥fa?-3′
aged 45 years as on the date of his accide13:aij:ii{3;§.§::1V¥:é?:1;§.€i_”‘ ‘
was earning Rs.5,000/~ p.m by ‘ ‘
Gudu. {Sale 3:’ Silk nests}
examined Gne Mr.Mtmiya;dpa:’L””as P..”£¥.;.,3 {he ”
income of the deceas¢d…V.Howev”éj;: iivithout
any basis declined V ‘%f£%’is’.’7’1.£”:I}C(§ of the
appeilants tvtaken notional
income of thé: §$§.3–,O00/ – which in our
View ” “i{§§€?er’V§side. Considering the
age sf t§?1é’ the date of his arzxzidemgai
death _ and ihé’ fiatflffi £3”? his avocation, we are cf tha
‘ V’ ‘-:}pi::ié’n2.._~:hat. the Ellfigjéastid must have earned not less
per menth, accsrdéngly after cieducting
I/iiifiof tawards his persona} expenses an& by
‘a.pp1yifig__Aé1’the appropriate muitiplier applicable t0 the
VA cimumstances of the case at ‘I3′ as held by
Apex Court in Guiam Khader Case repcrteé in ILR
2000 KAR 4416. The appeilants Wouid be cientitieci to
campensatiorz 0f Rs.4,16,000/- { i.e., Rs.4,I3()C) x 2/3 x
\\/
12 X 13 2 Rs.-4,1€>,OOO/-] towards “loss of V.
as, against Rs.2,’?6,()0{)/~ awarded by the A} ‘ ‘
7. Further the amount a “by
under the conventionai heaiédfi” ~i_1f1 at is
also appears to be on me 1037;?-y medified in the abave tenns. The ap§el1ants
“entitled to compensation of Rs.4,66,0{)£)/– with
hgnterest at Rs.’70,/o p.a finm the date of petitioza til} the
date of depasit. The Regstry is directed E0 draw up tha
award in terms {srf this judgment. The respondent is
\x/
hareby directeci to deposit the aforesaid arnoum within ‘V
6 weeks from today. The amount already cieposi1_;¢_;§:”‘-..:.
woulé stand adjusted. Sd 2
Sk/bpy18209~–