-3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30%! DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003-
BEFORE " '
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH {3!AIL)!: " 4_
3.995% A K "
M! US» F3
BEIWEEN:
Regionai Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.144, _
No.-44/45, LEO Shoppi11g.Cu;npIt:'x, ' V
Residency Cross Road, _
Bangalore-560 025.
By its Manager. V
(By Sn 0- Mahۤh-
.. APPELLANT
AND:
1.
Anjauappa; rm Yéfilvs,
S/o. Eo§ujn_J.ga.n_g&ppg;~ ‘
2. Smt. years.
A I{‘t1fx1s§fi¥s4Eiz:1j1fla,’v§’!{§é{1 18 years,
» D]
4. ‘- Aged 12 years
0. Anjafiappa,
Si£zcc”‘minor by his father] guardian
1″ xizspbndent
ii 0. Sri. Rampura Village 85
PDSL Ch1’kk:aba1lapur’I’aluk,
Bangakorc Dist.
5. Mrs. D. Laxmi Devi, Major.
W] 0. Venkateshwaxalu,
R/a. No.8-74-A, Near
Government Hospital Road,
Cihagammarri, Kamool Diet.
(By M15. 14. N. Haxish Babu. Adv. for RLRS)’ « -1′ 7
This Misc. First Appeal i5′
M.V.Act against the judgment cit.» .13¢Qi_3.QG()7 passed
in MVC N051/2007 on the file of the Addi…x_Jud8€’¥. Court of
Small Causes, Member, VEv’I5C’I’, Me’t1._t;;x}ii§an Axea, “Banga1<m:,
(SCCH.1'i<:;.!5), awarding a 'eeinpcnsg-_itioi:._'nf'~Rs.3,88,500[- with
interest @ 6% pm. from the daie of payment
This Appeal, day. the Court
delivered the _ _ " V 4' A. "
is __i:1s§urance Company, questioning
the quantuxfin .
parents. brother and sister of the
(ice A ..aeed.
A€:3._._ Ogrze fgsiévathappa was moving on his motor cycle on
” mega; £egiaway~7, the offending bus came from opposite side in
VA end negligent manner and dashed against the said motor
and as a result of which, he suflemd griexzeazs injury and
euccumbed to the same. The claimants filed a claim petition
under Section 163%. of the Motor Vehicles Act inlemiia, stating
– 3 –
that the deceased was 20 years at the time of accident and was
earning Rs.5,000/» per month. The Tribunal consicleffixg the
evidence found that, there is no evidence ts take theé’ pf
the deceased at Rs.5.000l- and considered tbe’
deceased at Rs.3.000/«. By applyixlfimtlie’ _’1x€i’.x”tiL3y ‘ 7 AV
tak1n’ g into consideration the age of
compensation towards loss of tiepeiidencsr at Iii
all. it granteci compensafiortof R.~.a.-‘.”;3,*£.%’8*S(}’.’}_.f~ at 6%
4. t”.Aev11;nseI;A_ submitted
that. in cases’ .parents. the age of the
parents hi-es __purpose of determining the loss of
dependency’ the deceased. He also submitted
that, * :1e1me1′-. Aieireuncxtstatnces, in case of bachelor. 50%
~ bevméteen. He further submitted that. the
Rs.15,000]- per annum should have been
takeia the of Rs.36.(}0O] – per annum.
V A’ *5,’ Vvbeamed Counsel for the claimants submitted that,
% claimants are parents, bmther and sister, since the
T tieeeesed was the only earning member of the family and
D? being the dependants, coxisidering the age of the minor
sister and parents, the Tr&una1 has rightly taken the age of the
-5-
of the deceased for the purpose of determining the loss of
dependency.
7. Insofar as deduction is conccmed.
deceased was the only earning member and *’;’:.i{:
naturally would have been more, fin. 1.23;: ‘
family, particularly, the claim pezgfion %*V¢mam seéti¢3;%V16}3–A .
applicable to the class of peopkfiu m<;st« 'vfhfiivficazning is
spent on the livelihood_ .. schedule
shows deduction of V1/Std finch, I am not in
afileement with Counsel for the
appellant for Pérgonal expenses of the
dcceascd. " """ A "
8. In the’nght efitig Tnbunal has rightly granted
the cor:-§pen sati<$n'» loss of dependency by taking into
tfitéméleceased. Insofar as other heads are
has granted only Rs.4.500/–. Hence. the
" V ' ' judmflefit agd of the Tribunal do not call for interference.
u A' the Appeal fails and same is dismissed. The
" amoufit deposit be tvansfencd to the Tribunal.
'' mm}-
Sd/-»
Judge