as: THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAé..__' %.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH my OE»AUGLES'§"'§(3!§§~: ~
BEFQRE
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE'. B.V§'~N5(§AR}iT§INA'~ F'
N£.F.A NO.6b9£-X},/2008.__ '
Between:
1. s PEDDA VENKA'§'EsHALL_I*
S/o.s.APPALANAmU
AGEDABOUT 4.2'¥13:A1.=:s, _
e:}Cc;AGRIcu;L,TiS?::RE, _
R/o.sANA__PvR,_ 'V _ ' .
GANGAvA';"m.j~;=,LuK,» 4 *
KoPPA1.%.13£s*:tRicf::,_ .. " ' "
2. SMI' S._PA'R*v*A'mi*'~_.,AV _ _ ' -
W/0.s.'i>.EImA -V§;N_E{A'FF_;SHAi..U
AGED ABO U'T 39 Y§:.€s:e:s,'*--
OCC:_HOUSi£HOI,I)--.WC)R'fi,
R/C{.SANAPUR,~
" * G;-w'GzwATHI TAL
" KQPPAL DISTRICI'. APPELLANTS
my .T"g.'Sii'A11§fAai;x§AsAwA, ADVOCATE}
And:
" "£32: 3m§IAGER
~ M]'3. RAJPAL ROAD LINES PVF LTD
' -,,AGE\'MAJOR,0CC:GWNER OF' LORRY
BEARING NO.MH~12~DG-5962
WK/0.47/4, B.S.NO.29, 131,0? NQ46,
PUNEWSATAR ROAD, DHANKAWA{)I,
PUNE--4 1 1043. MAHARASHTRA.
2. THE 1:3msI0NAL MANAGER
THE NEW ENDIA INSURANCE CO.L'1'D.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICENII 101, 3
THE PENTAGON SHAHU COLLEGE ROAD,
PUN'E*{)9, ~'
POLICE NO. 13310013 1/05/0T1/9o0'r21'32
THROUGH DIVISIONAL " _ , 1_
MANAGER,T.HE NEW INDIA AS3§3'i?ANCE' 4:_:(.r~.L."-*'D.',,
COURT ROAD, BELLARY. . RESPQISIQENTS
(By S SHRISHAILA, ADVOCATVEZ FOR "
This miscellaneous amen/S 173(1) of MV
Act against the judgzment 3S_%I1(1_ aWa1fd"ciat§:§_f08.O2.20O8 passed
in MVC No.41/_2f}Q7 the file of Civil Judge (S1:'.D1}.) and
MACT, Ganga*Iati_;"i;_'. "ip*a.r**a1;,?"v--e'i'gz,¥ic>:viI1gv.: the claim petition for
eompensatioxgvaiei"ere; .. " " "
This appeaz order this day, the Court
delivered the fo«!1owi:tf1g:_ V ' L' ' g
A %%%% _..JUDG!mI*3'T
---.matter is posted for orders, with the
e._..._vV.'eoI1se;e§: '(*$f eounsei for the parties it is heard finally.
H H egpeal is by the parents of the deceased Sr1'mv' as
"enhancement of compensation by ehallengixzg the
VT fixgéigrziient ané award passed in MVC No. 41 of 2007 dated
"(5£§.02.2008 by MAC'? at Gangavathi. ,/fr'
J1
3. The relevant facts of the case are that on 31. _1_{}.2006
at about 10.15 am. Srinivas was proceeding on aj"Vé§yeieVA4on
(}angavathi--Kulig;i main road when the d1'ivef'< 4'
bea:('1'ng No.1\/{H :2 TC} 5952 came a'msheAa:;d '§iie4g1.ige1ei;'1«
mariner and dashed against S1'if3ivs¥:*..s.a: as_ a._1eszj1t_""he
sustaizled grievous injuries on."th_e
that they had lost the bread "the fafniiy, parents
filed a claim petition en various heads.
4. mgr * s::f"«V.:i1otieeVVVV'i'rom the Tribunal, the
respondenfégzsuraneeA:.¢sm1jéJ1y appeared and flied its Written
statemen-t.. sfaesfixents made in the claim petition
ifsdismissal while respondent No. 1 herein was
; VV ~ . .2
_ tithe basis of the absve pleadings, the Tribxmm
tiie foilowing issues fer the purpose of esnsideration:
“1} Whether petitioners preve that
respondent No.1 being the driver of iorry bearing
4/92
‘£7
Reg. NO.MH—12/DG–5062, drove the same in x~a:{;h.e
and negligent manner and caused the aecide;;_t§V”- V
2) Whether respondent No.3 proves .«
deceased was riding his bieyeie _
negligent marmer, as such _
Dlace? _ .. Vt V
3) ‘Whether eI1uti’t1edT’ T01:
eomperisation? If so,
whom?
4) What erder?”
In suppqrt examineé P’Ws-I
and PWSJQ ‘eX11ibit–P1 te P9 whiie the
respondent exa4_’nzi:1eé._RW-~ got marked ex21ibits–RI and
On’, basis shove material the Tribuna} ganted
‘Rs.2,73,{){}G/ – with interest at the rate of 8%
of claim petition til} the date of realisation.
Rat beitig. setisiied with the said award the claimants have
.1 pfefei*r*e£§A tltis appeal.
” I have heard learned cozmsei for the appellants and
the learned eounsei for the respondent»-insurance company.
2%’?
W
5
‘It is submitted on behalf of ‘(I16 appellants that in the__.i;1sta11t
¢ase the deceased was working as a mason – ‘I’1:: “*2a:as
earnirag R$.5,00{}/» p.m. That the 4’
October 2006 but the Tribunal has ; x
of the deceased at Rs.1€)O/- per ifs
lower side. He also submits ‘fine a.\}va1f<i-.Q:f v_cii::fi15eIi:sa.tidt1
en the conventional heads.' is 213.2230 therefore
this is a fit case for enhanCér;:e11t,iif"th¢LT'a$§g£1r(_1.
7. Pkfir thje, judment and award of the
Tribufial, ¢::21iI1sel”». éppe11ant-i1:1surance company
$ubInit$; ‘tliat “?..?.1_§;é) ;é1bS§:nce of there being any categorical
i%:i:ga1*d to the earnings cf the éeceased, the
in considering R$. 100/ — per day as the
i3:;c:o1:ué”– ‘ti*::}af.t the judgzxzent anti award does net cal} fer
‘ fizzy i:1t;rfefe11ce.
1%
8. Having heard learned Counsel on both
point that arises for my Consideration is as -..VWfie€f.41erd’ the’
appellants are entitled to additionalieesijjegisafielfihi * ‘V A’
9. From the material on I’€C(3I’d “is et*i_§1eI1t_th:’a1;”1′}.1e
deceased was working as a’ _thaf’~,he” was da
bacheior. The parents have stated fifl’1.9.t..v~i;hey were
dependent on the ixleomseifi ,C:onsidering the
fact that the accidefit V2006 and the fact
that mascslxy the Tribunal could. not have
assessed ..:1otioria§ the deceased at Rs.100/— per
day \.=s2*h§’Ci’1e_is ‘dassessed in the case of unskiiled
‘3ab(“m-r.” Uiideffilese circumstances, the notional income of
$:i}e”absence ef there being direct evidence has
xwvte be a;s–ses~ssdv Rs. E50/~ per day and which would amount;
pm. Considering the fact that the deceased
baeheior, 58 per cent cf the said ameunt weuid have to
VT “deducted towards his persona} expenses and keeping in
the age ef the mother ef the deceased} by appiying
multiplier of 14, compensation on the head of V-}’0_§3S of
dependency would be Rs.3,’78,000/»~ (4,500×1/2.2:}-V.’éxi4%i~}:'”If:
addition a sum of Rs.30,0_{}0/- is a\x.’arfi§¥c::dv
conventional heads takilng £116 A_com;pf}§1Satic2i to 7 V
Rs.4,08,{){}G/– instead of Rs.2,73,f}GOf–;-z avee;§;:ee*~
Tribunal. The enhanced comgexigtian sha§:1’t:a::*r§?”1;i:1Ht£2rest at’
the rate of 6% 19.3,. from dateilef the date
of realisation. On deposit the enhanced
compensation Veeqeiafly between the
appeilazltsg “”” ‘vfiuiegf K {compensation a sum of
Rs.40,000/_–. ue:acA:V11’ $h”:»§;jl_>T»i2§{A”‘x:{:s5posi£ed in the name of the
appe1}a1:;j:s.. LfoI; “‘ : period of five years in any
= Bmk. W”}’}iVey shall be entitled 1:0 withdraw
pefioiiigzcéi i3::ii’st«e::_1*c:Vsf:”,.V<V:n the said deposit. Balance: compensation
ije.__re1§%za$gée1ATt9 the appeilants. Appeal is afiowed in yart
" " * I this above. terms.
Sd / –
JUDGE