High Court Karnataka High Court

Reeta D Souza vs Sajith S/O.Dhamodharan, Adult on 6 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Reeta D Souza vs Sajith S/O.Dhamodharan, Adult on 6 December, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE em DAY OF DECEMBER. 2010
BEFORE   

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENnfi§SE:(§¥b Wi§A'V' 

Miscellaneous First Appeal.N"6."'4.«1_4:5 of 
BETWEEN . V '

Reeta D Souza

W/0. Canute I) Souza

Aged about 49 yea1's__,"'~-e_ _ _ V " -._  
Residing at Near Try¥Is1and_  L V
Post & Village;  e _ _  
MangaI0re,;_" Q-   = *  
I). K.   "      '

 %%%%    e  Hfippenant

%%~{By  Sri.   Shastry, Adv.)

        

~ 9»:

 53.,'/'0, Dhamodharan, Adult,
 _ "1?._/ Nivas,
. VHr'5use~:;N'0. 10-778,
 Maflgalpady, Uppala Post,
 Kasaragod Taluk.

 Nationai Insurance Company Ltd.
 III Floor, the Hy~--Land Plaza,
M.G. Road, Kasargod Taluk,
Kerala.
Represented by its Manager.

 Respondents

{By Sri. Gangadhar Sangolli, Adv, for R2, _
R1 — Served}

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Acit..dgdids~i ‘t1de

judgment and award dated:17.0l.2009 p_a&=sed”‘i:f1
No.46/ 2006 on the file of Principal Civil;Ju.dge'{Sr.D’n.,,)

& Member, MACT–IV, Mangal_o.r.e,_ pa_rt1y’1″aIj1ow’ing the ‘5

claim petition for compensation ‘arid s_pee,l;ipn’.g
enhancement of compensation.) T ‘ ‘ ”

This appeal coming’,o11_for.Adniiss’ion~–;”ti1is day)

the Court, delivered the foll(Sw_ing_:
Jopoflssrf

This is::’bylh_the for enhancement

of comperi.sa’tilo’n Tribunal.

2. Heard’. is admitted and with the

consent of-.lear.ne.d Cottnsei appearing for the parties, it

up forlfiriaidisposal.

ll sake of convenience parties are referred to

aslllltheyirppare referred to in the claim petition before the

it V’ , ‘I’1’ibt1nal.

Brief facts of the case are:

$5,.

That on 31.10.2005, when deceased Silvester D’
Souza was proceeding towards Mangalorehcgfrom

Manjeshwara, in a motorcycle bearing.~~regis_tr;ation

No.KA–19–S–916 as a pillion rider n¢ar

Thokkottu overbridge, a bus}: bear1’ng”‘.cregistrationwe,i\I.o. l

KL-14–E–37-47 came fronagtheir

negligent manner and niotor cycle,
as a result, deceasefdffell gggandflwlheel of the
bus passed over hisvAl.1ead:;. ‘he was taken to
Government and on the
way and sisters filed a
clairrr MACT, Mangalore, seeking
compensation –. The Tribunal by

inipjtigned and award has awarded

can1pelrrsation__of Rs.2,10,000/– with interest at 6% p.a.

5 is no dispute regarding death of deceased

Silvesteri’ D’ Souza in a road traffic accident, negligence

xi’ll«,,andiiiability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the

..,_only point that remains for my consideration in the

appeal is:

Whether the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal
just and proper or does it call V
enhancement? ”

6. After hearing the learned CounseI..for.Vth.e’

and perusing the award of the b

View that the cornpensatiponawar’dVe’d by

not just and proper, it is onvdvdéthde lower side’ therefore

it is deserved to be eriI’i«-anc§ed;5_ : ” _

7. Deceaised; aged about 24
years as: tnortem report EX. P 2.

‘ofli’é’._’t1’iei§r contention that the
deceased yvas: .1-~4.,OOO/– p.m. by Working as a

driver in fishing b’oat”have examined the mother of the

deeeaS’ed as PV’V”1″;”’empIoyer of the deceased as PW 3,

not produced any document to show

that the owner of a fishing boat and he was

paying…i2s.I4,000/~ as salary to the deceased, except

–..prod’ucing salary certificate Ex. P 7. Considering the

of the deceased as 24 years, year of accident

as 2005 his income could easiiy be assessed at

$4

Rs/1,000/– pm. as against Rs.3,000/– assessed by the
Tribunal. Father of the deceased died during the

pendency of the claimant petition. The

of the deceased cannot be treated as V’

and rightly they are not madefas “patjti-es s

As the deceased was a _bache1or”._and smothers’

deceased is only the dependent 500/(isms. deducted’
towards personal e2§pe_nse’§”‘Q «1f,.:ti._1e.si’deceased§sx Multiplier

of 13 is to be taken the age of the

mother 46 Accordingly loss of
dependency orjitffto;Rs.s;’»§12,000/– (Rs.4,000/»~ x

50% x_ . it is awarded as against

Rs. 1,98;QsO0/Q by the Tribunal.

taclcittidtt ——– “to that, Rs.10,000/m is awarded

estate, Rs.15,000/– is awarded towards

and affection, Rs.10,000/– towards

transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as

against Rs.l2,000/– awarded by the Tribunai under

.. _._convent1’ona1 heads.

8. Thus the claimant is entitled for the following
compensation:

1} Towards loss of dependency –

2) Towards Loss of estate “l’Q:,’OyO:O–y/

3) Towards loss of love St affection.Rs.f_i.l.5′,OOO/pf

4) Towards transportation of * .

Dead body and funeral ” 1′ ‘ _ A’
Expenses ‘

V35′. 3,r4e7,eoo/:e’

9. Accordingly tljé and the
judgment andggawarclwoffiibstznodified to the
extent gaboi?e.g:’Il’he’V.’elairnant is entitled for
a total — as against
the Tribunal with interest at
6% » :lttlt1¢.li”:hlwéenhanced compensation of
the date of claim petition till the

V’ ‘date of realisation.

‘1fhe”:l_iilsurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with interest within

‘twolmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

11. Out of the enhanced compensation Rs.1,00,()OO/–
{Rupees one Iakh only] with proportion interest is

ordered to be invested in ED. in any /

seheduied Bank or Post Office in

mother of the deceased, 2nd c?{atrna11tv for-ia– is

years renewable once in, thee years an option to

withdraw interest periodic_a1}y and the ‘Yremaining
amount with proportionatep. Vihtgerestp is ordered to be
released in her favou_r,_” V’ A

Sd/-

JUDGE