BETWEEN:
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY €)F_AU{}US'}_'." ;2'veé'_~ , '
PRESENT:
HOWBLE MRS.Jusrzcta»Tt»«LzmJU'LA'i:!§EL:§i:'§§v ._ .
AN13'».._
H€JN'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KES1~iAVANARAYAN£\
M.F.A.Nc}.§f3g4--'{ 2903 _
SMT.PUSBPAfV€f;1;O; L.Af1"*--g §<Ri'sHm§}§'§iA1J .LAfi'E'1{R'i§§_ie>1NA NAIR
AGED. A3063 18~YEAi~2S
. PréA9rH.iL:<A'%--s/0 'KRISHNA NAIK,
A §X*GED..ABQ{}'£'. 15 YEARS
.' ~s§;;%r«.<§7'0S,iv;3L:';;'B"};I,
'W'; O LATE%'TE-§AVARYA NAIK,
AGED ABGUT "23 YEARS. ...APPELLAN'I'S
R '€ 3Y .-..SR:;Y".LAKs§-iM1KANT REDDY 35 SNfZ'.Y.MA§.ATHI
'm:a_9Y, ADVS.)
'T "AI'e'*15:
" " V1. I{.A.PRAI{ASHJ S/O §{.A.BALAPPA
}
MAJOR, {)RIVER OF' METADOR,
BEARING REG.NO.KA--35/1946,
R] 0 UTTANGI VILLAGE
HADAGAEJ TALUK,
BELLARY.
2. KMALLAPPA W/O KARI GIRIAPPA
MAJOR, OWNER OF METADOR,
BEARING REG. NCLKA-35/1946,
R/O UTTANGI VILLAGE,
HADAGALI TALL} K,
BELLARY.
3. M] 8. NEW INDIA AssIII1*AI\IcE-tj(:.,LTI)'§,. ' --
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, I --- ;
BEL.LARY-----583 101. -.A.,_:I?E'tZ':.PC}NDEiNTS
(BY SRI.V.R.DA'I'AR, ADV. 15034:; R§':':Ij& --§:E:RvEI3)
TI~I;:s M;F.::I., IS 933233 {:13 173(1) op M.V. ACT
AGA:Ns'r1.frI~I--I:;' IEUDCE-ME-N'1"a_A'ND -AWARD DATED 4.9.2003
PASSEE} Ii'; Ivivc: ,I~I'QI'.~4'69.;29I;--0 ON THE? FILE OF THE
MEMBER, I; 3I3L;--..Ai:éY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM .PE.'r1':'I0N' v§f<§R"v_c;ttiMPENsATIoN AND SEEKING
V ENHAMCEMENT G~E'_£OMPENSATION.
'?I"*:4§I';<a:I:1EI§'F..;§.'---coM;NG ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
Mr;I_m;I,A'vC'II,,_ELILjU'R, ..1., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
‘I!-féard the learned counsei for the appellant and 39
Sri. V.R.I)ata.r, learned cotmsei for resgondent No.3.
2/
2. The appeal is filed seeking
comgaensatien awarded by the ‘I’r’2_¥m11a1 ii: i~e’s§e;::%’:;r e;iea1:h” ” .
of one Krishna Naik Whe died 31:1 ;’z:4£ar;eemr’~aeciéie1<1i:"*é.s;1
29.4.2000 at about 1.45 —a !'§'.oéi<:i.–, '
The undisputed facteemre children
and mother of the As on the date
of the aecide:;t,v__ saifi" working as a
Selection 1.. ' 'Eeonemies at GVVP
Govem.me'fit:iFii;e;1§_ Hagari Bemmanahalli.
On titze 'aeeiaent; he was proceeding on his two
E-8414 when a metader van
beefing No.RA:V3V5–1§.!%6 driven in a rash and negligent
» to have dasheé against the meter cycle. Se
2 :fi'ere'a"S' 'ejefionable negligence of the driver of matador
vex}, 'fiibunai has censidered issue No.2 at length, and
" has errived at the conclusion that the driver of the
A7-Vénééitador van alone was i'E§Sp0I1Sib1€ for the accident.
Apparently, 3:10 appeal is filed ehaflengixzg this; finding of
the Tribunal.
3. Regarding actionabie negligence of the driver, we
held that there is no necessity to pmceefi furfl1er..jj:1t,e~.the
said aspect of the matter, as the fingiing of
that efiect has 110%: been chaflengegipy .4
4. Srilfiatar, learned, eounése-.Ai for f€$§i0f1denf’=–¢
sought $.13 justify the of end as
such, yrays for dismiesa_1 of
€he”vvq-uiantum of compensation,
appafenfiljg, ‘ ” flied fer enhancement of
cempeneatien. {X3 16 — salary certificate, which
se.»1′.éi1e3.r…c).f.’i:he deceased was Rs.16,92G/- which
~ j,i§m:1;;d.,¢5se i_:1*1e””I)A 21′: 38% on Rs.1:2,{}0O/~. Though, we do
“:1.y t1.ie’1eé1::§e§1VV’eei111s§e1 for” V
the appellant. Relevany pares’ i’26’.and”i2.?».’eve§1ve with a
new methodeiog of ttaieé eeh;i1e.assessin,g 10235 of
d.epe:1denc§;’__ce_se ief s’a1a1’ieci.fp_e1’eo;n..:§ where there was
definite c;?e”e.fieee~. promotions and posts he
wouie. eeezythjxxg was uneventfui.
Apparentig ‘exeeijt “ea1ar},-* Certificate Ex.P.16, no
eyfideiuce ei’-»:n_i§*”‘ot§ier..’ sort is preduced before us to the
‘V ‘A deeeeeseci would have become Vice Prineipai
._ the Ceilege at the time of his retirement and
iirhat.__’§ve€.$ie1 have been his salary at the time of retirement.
.. Veifherefere, we are not foliewing the methodologr
V ‘;}e{shuben’s case.
6. We alee cannot ioee sight of the fact that his
saiary Woulgi me’: have been Rs.16,92(}/~ for the next 1′?
years of service. With the minimum .
and other benefits avaiiabie to _fl1e,__:ieceeee(‘1: ‘_e\}Ven ‘af’i,ef ” ”
dedueiing 20°z’o towards incoxne véfe ~eaIi*.safe1y
iuceme as Rs.’2(),000/~. Thei=:.=,.fore,A’vae ::I?1’*:eArA1sA;ie.’..}.Vh33z
iearned counsel for the wyo \ea’sT.fejrVAVeneugh to
say that his saiary 20,009] ~ atleast,
we accept the?-_:Vsaid account that
with 3.11 benefits, he would
have saiary. Further, While
‘tincertainities of life and 21150
the job’ i’:~:._’_4’§al:eV1;i “ee’eeieerafion and therefore, there is
igeijieed ton’ further amount from Rs.’20,()0O/–
‘ _e:i(:ept’pereenai expenses; of the deeeaseé.
ff; learned. eounsei for the appellant submits
AA ‘flee method of deduction of units towards personal
V-,,V”eXf§e:1ses ought to be applied in this case as they are Wife,
three children and mother as the dependents. Since the
appeiiants were not in large number as found by the
Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Tr¢mspart Corporation
‘E5 ,~. fgfiefaifir. ing:idenfé1’C’harges
xx” ;, AA 1;:
Vs. Trllak Chandra reported in ILR 1995 KAR _.2:-32′?’f,” .é5§%eT A.
are of the opinion that dedzzcfion of .:»,lv3?’?
courts would be just reas0nabie. ‘g fair. 4as. ‘
conventional heads are cozzcernécfi-the fdHow’§ng1»vafi’;§§)’u:1t
computed as compensation pgagréibig to 1:216 –a_;3pé11a:ats
irxciuding the amount awaidfied
1. loss of depeI1éeii{;}§” u ..R§§.20,80,000–O0
(1,60,{)0O ;;~1:«;}__ ,. ‘ 4- Jr .
2. loss ofVVr:<,\;»:;..s_'_ Liz}: Rs. i0,000«0O
3. loss ofiviove .0 ilfidren.
and moihei’ % Rs. 1{),0O0~()0
4. iossef estatie ggf me; deceased Rs. 10900-00
Rs. 10,00G~0O
Totai R532 1 , 20,000~()0
one Iakhs and twenty theusand only]
V}§<:<.:V<$rdix1g}y, the appeal is alioweci in part
the compensating to Rs.21,2€),00{)–O0 (Rupees
one lakhs and twenty thousand cmly) as against
awarci of Rs.11,99,4GO/« [Rupees eleven lakhs
njntynizze theusand and {cur hundred only} awarded by
the Tribunal The enhanced compensatian
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from _
petition til} the date of deposit. V}a§¢s13ondc;1A% :'fN§"A;~E3 is '
directed to déposit the said'
with intaerest and costs within:
receipt sf copy of the order.
> Iudgg $51/5 Iadgj-3' Rs}?