High Court Karnataka High Court

S Veena @ Yashoda vs The Managing Director on 20 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S Veena @ Yashoda vs The Managing Director on 20 November, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And Gowda
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF N0VEMBERg..2f}'Q::9'*A _

THE HON'BLE MR.  H33;  A  7
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE.VB.SREENIV'ASE"G0WDA'VV

M.F.A.No,. 1o5417fo£ 2008 tlvm 
BETWEEN: T  5  A   

1.

S. Veena @ Yashoda”, ‘
W/0. Late _De__Var2_1j. A’,
Aged absju1″}29 j,r.e:arS,_ “” ”

2. Kum. D’;..vMa’1:;t’_sha,’ ”

S/o’; “Late’jiDevé:gfaj
Aged ab01,it”‘8″years’;~__ .. ‘

D/_o. Late Deva–raj*,.

.A_§gedz6 yeara… A A.

‘ v __
‘ __. V EM,’ »I,avte’VDVevaraj,
._ Aged’ 57′ years.

. F/O.v.L’.’ate Devaraj.

A’ ‘Aged about 62 years.

4_c:1

Qkepellant No.2 81 3 being
Minors, represented by their
Mother S.Veena @ Yashoda,

2. This appeal is directed against the judgn1entva.,n’ds.award

dated 14.12.2007 passed in MVC No.3048/200&6~~onj;the?{tieof

the VI Addl. SCJ & Member. MACT, Bangalore–..(‘l€fibur1ai'”ior4°-.,

brevity], on the ground tha.t,M’th*e._ offi

Rs.4,75,000/– awarded by the Tribhu.’nai.V0vith interest at 7′)/(:0?

per annum as against the’-v..t4j:c’iVai111 of E1i3;P€ilant for

Rs.25,00,000/-.

3. The brief facts of 24.04.2006 at
about 9.50 it travelling as a pillion
rider alongg. Um€Sh in 3 500033?

L–5IO8 on Magadi road.

When of Prasanna theatre from

northern side “‘i:ov_VVVsout:hern side, a BMTC bus bearing

F-992 came in a rash and negligent

m”ann_e1’ anhd.,’dasiied against his motor cycle, as a result of

‘which_”;~ the “deceased fell down and sustained grievous

On account of the injuries sustained in the

‘_’_a_cci.d’ent he was admitted to hospital, where he

nhstxectimbed to the injuries. On account of death of the

deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of tohe’e’de»oeased.

In the light of the judgment. of the Apex Court in..«Sai*la_’__’Vern2a’s

case reported in 2009 AG} 1298, the appropriate d:e’dLl’14ctilo’n

1,/4, having regard to the number :oI””dependAan;ts..llV:” the id.

Tribunal has erred in applying the of :

appropriate multiplier applicalj_le~._as per the.aioresaid”‘decision

is 16. The income assessed T1’ib_VL111al at.Rs,33,50O/~p.m.
1s just and reasonable –f§Cc_or’ldin;Vgl}tubyfalpplyilig the same, we
award a sum of Rs. 5,04A.AO.0]Of- 16}. The Break

up 1s as unde1′:;” 4 A

1 . «««« ~-.To’w.a’rd’s::_;loss’ -ofelovel ‘amid’ it
_affe-ctioizsp « f Rs. 25,000/–

2. ‘A * pp TOWa’1″dSV ohsequies
‘And .transpo_i’tatioI1 Rs. 15,000/~
,, it Towards. Vlossvof estate Rs. 10,000/-
‘A loss of dependency Rs. 5,04,000/-

medical expenses Rs. 5,000/-

Total = Rs.5,59,000/–

So far as the conipeusation awarded gdltowards
Conventional heads are concerned they are just and’ relascnable

and does not call for interferance.

In the light of the facts and :=circra’mstai9.cesjlstalted–labove

the appeal filed by the appellants a._1lo’«.ved tire’

judgment and award dated ’12..u200’7″ in MVC
No.3048/2006 on thev;tfi.i’e. offdthfed SCJ & Member,
MACT, Bangalore is lierehyflinodivfieid. “dint appellants are

entitled for a totem;,§on1fi~.¢ns;_aiiofi’ “I-?_s;5;l’59,000/– as against

the date of the appellants are not entitled

for interest. ‘for tlieggdelayedfi period of 229 days in filing the

“V E’ A _. ‘ . . . . -A ‘V

_;.1u’heV::’res’poAr1d.ent–Corporation is directed to deposit the

l enhadnced corndptednsation together with interest, within a period

. of-.f0ur from the date of receipt of copy of thejudgment.

of the enhanced compensation of Rs.8-4,000/~,

:”Rs;”1t7,000/- each shall be released in favour of appellant 1 and

4 and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be”~invested

in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised/Scheduled the

name of appellant.s 2 and 3. till they attain majparity

No.1 is pern11’tt.ecl to withdraw _p.e.r1’_Qdi(:a’IH’int’ei’est’ ._},1g:cfa.1edj’

thereon. for the welfare of appellants

Office is directed to draW’vt.l:ile–laward’;’ apccejfdinlgly.

Vb/-