Rangasetty S/O Basavasetty vs Beeresh A S/O H Ananthamurthy on 15 December, 2010

  _ 'IVE2.1r1ifyEa.rVi?;A~:1f1a, H """ "

 _4. §V1ah.gicievé1setty,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAICA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY or DECEMBER, 2()j:'_e;j, 
BEFORE xu "u'V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.sREENN'AeE   
Miscellaneous First Anbeal No.  
BETWEEN  H' A%   i

1. Rangasetty, . .
S/0. Basavasetty, '  
Age: 61 years, H   ;
R/o. Begur Village,  _  '
Gundlupetfaaluk. 

2. Smt. Mézhacleyi,  . "  .
W/0'... Gvopasetgf , .. 
Age: 28 'years. ' TL . 

D / 0}, RangaSef'ty,"   
R/at.' « Pa'd%agL:ru ..V£11agé';« 
Terakah.ar11bi Hob-1:; 
GuI1d1upet..Ta11ik. =

A '  'D,/o*.v__Ra'ngé1setty,
 . Ageiv-.2'6._years'.

V S /'~~.r)V. 'Rangasetty,
AA Age: 23 years.

 . V 'Sfiramy,
 S/0. Rangasetty
' Age: 21 years.
Appellants 1,3,4 and 5 are

E31,';



Resident of Begur Village and Hobli,
Gundlupet Taluk.

(By Sri. R. C. Nagaraj, Adv.)

AND

_1_. Beeresh A.
S/ o H Ananthamurthy,  
Age: 26 years,  
No.18, 121" Cross 1'
3"' Block, 2113 Main';  . '  _' V 
T R Nagar, Bangalo'rei28'.--_L  g

2. Nassir Kama}, V "
Age: 48 year'.és'e;,__l _ 2:   A ' 
No.111/3,91,  Road M  V .
Navaraiag  »    >  
Banga1,ore~._¥  ' it

3. Nati--onal lnsufancev  "Ltd. ,
Divn;   __  
Kumara-. Krnpa _ R0ad1.\ 
N;ear_Shivananda Circle,

 Au   ..... V' V

  b3r_'i'ts Branch Manager.

 Respondents

 P. Leeladhar and Co., Advs. for R. 1.
 " R2 - notice dispensed with V / 0. dated 30.11.10
* '_ Sri. L Sreekanta Rao, Adv. for R3]

  This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the

 r~ss.':qadgment and award dated: 23.12.2008 passed in MVC
 "«_No.SO/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge [Sr.Dn] &
 --~~Jl\/IFC, IVIACT, Nanjangud, partly allowing the claim

petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.

   _



This appeal coming on for Admission, this_..C__1ay,
the Court, delivered the following: ' "

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the claimants for.

of compensation awarded by the hi 4. l ‘ i

2. Heard. The appeal is -.__adrnitte’d and

consent of learned Counsel appeai’ing for parties, it
is taken up for final ” ‘

3. For the sake of c.oiiveiiienC’e_ parties” are referred to

as their are the claim petition before the

Tribunal’. 4′ _

A_ 4. _~’5:,B:riefufacts’*Of..th€ case are:

__O8.07.2007, when deceased Madamrria

Bangalore m Ooty road in front of

Post Begur, a car bearing registration No.

it ‘V~:i_”*i{Afé0.4wMB~9469 came from Gundlupet side in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased

and she sustained injuries. immediately she was shifted

to hospital where she succumbed to injuries on the

same day. Her husband and five major Children filed a

Claim petition before the MACT, Nanjangud,

compensation of Rs.23,55,0OO/W. The ”

impugned judgment and award«. “I’1’aS_:”‘

compensation of Rs.2,54.()00V/»~ with i11,terestfa_t”6%

5. As there is no dispute-«llVi*egardir:gl_ ‘the of
deceased Madarnma negligence and
liability of the insurer the only
point that ren1air1s’Vfor1A._ in the appeal

is:

quantum of

compensation 4′ awarded by the Tribunal is

just and V.p.roperl””or does it call for
,,._%.enhaneern’ent? _

huearing the learned Counsel for the parties

award of the Tribunal, I am of the

–V Vievv”ltha’t.AVthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

l..fnot’ljunst and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore

‘ is deserved to be enhanced.

fij.

‘II

7. Deceased Madamrna was aged about 50 years at

the time of her death in the accident as evident’

post mortem. report Ex. P 2. The claimants*’..if1 l

of their claim that the deceased Wa’s”‘ear1’ling

to Rs.200/– per day by doing Coolie

husband of the deceased 1
extract showing the :4 age
of the deceased as 50 as Coolie
and year of could be
assessed R’s.2,500/~ assessed
by the arellhusband and children.
T hereforethleage.._oi«l:,’;ia»e”h;’ti’sband who is aged about 60

years to beltakeni for calculation of loss of

1/13″! of her income is to be deducted

per’s0nal expenses. As per age of the

V it _ husb”and–.f:oi ‘the deceased the multiplier applicable to his

is 9. Accordingly loss of dependency works

dto’ias.2,1s,000/M {Rs.3,000/~« x 2/3 x 12 X 9) and it

T ‘miislllawarded as against Rs.2,40,000/- awarded by the

4 Tribunal.

8. Rs.10,000/~ awarded by the Tribunal towards

loss of consortium is just and proper an it does

for interference.

9. In addition to that Rs.2O,.OO0./7′ [Rsl.l5′;f§OOl/’-Vllfor”V, ll’

each Child) is awarded towards ioss of_l’1o,Ve

affection, Rs.l0,000/– loss, oflestate’ and
Rs.10,000/– towards vt–ranspoI’tation”-iof dead-b»ody and
funeral expenses is awardedf V V

10. Thus the the following

cornper1satioi’i:l.ij_.,

1] ” Loss of depe1″1deri’ey Rs. 2,165,000/–

2] ‘Loss of -coiisortiium Rs. 10,000 / —

13)’ _ Lossiof estate Rs. 10,000/–

‘4) E V’ Loss of love’ 81 affection Rs. 20.000/–

5] f Transportation of dead body

‘ – ” ~§)”v.__”i&~funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/W

Total §s.2,66,ooo/-

1*. .is..4_Ace”ordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the

and award of the Tribunal is modified to the

“–me§§:tent stated herein above. The claimants are entitled

for a total compensation of Rs.2,66,000/~ as against

Rs.2,54,000/– awarded by the Tribunal with interest at

6% p.a. 011 the enhanced compensation of Rs.12,0Q_0/»–
from the date of claim petition till the

realisation.

12. The Insurance Company
enhanced compensation arii_dui1t
two months from the date of this
judgment and the released in
favour of the of the

deceased.

1\E,d'(h)”i9vde1″?.:£va__is _
RIBS