IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAIZ) DATED THIS TIIE 19m DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 BEFORE V. THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN, Q MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5094/ROOISVVI.'__'_j " BETWEEN: 1. SABAYYA, S /O IRANNA, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., 2. SMT. SHARNAMMA, W/O SABI-mD,\/.)"=_ , 'I . AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL NIA1'eAGER, _ NEW INDIA AS.'SU.RANC'EI.,C"O.,LTD, DIvI'3IOI~IAL'O_EI4I<:E, ARYA._EDIGA BUILDING, NEARBUS STAND,'--BELL}1..RY; DIST. BELLARY. 2. MR. ABDUL BASI-IER MOHAMMED, Si/O' MOHAMEED, AGE MAJOR. ,"OwNER OF LoR'RY...R.EARING NO. "RA 1'9/'B--4S8o, R/O PANJOTI » .BANGwAL, DIST. DAKSHINA KANNADA. ...RESPONDENTS (BYISRI. B.CfSj_EL5THARAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R1 SRI"4G.N.RAICH'UR, ADV. FOR R2) .'I'HI.S APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OP' MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.5.2007 PASSED IN = RIVC j.\IO.79O/2005 ON THE FILE OF TI-IE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN} AND MACII', GANGAVATHI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally in respect
of the appeal preferred by the claimanV§g”‘IIigeekilng
enhancement of compensation.
2. Appellants’ counsel
Accident Claims Tribunal erred_ in tov_§?arVds_IK
the personal expenses of the luCi’e_cea_sed–lse-nil: the Claimants,
therefore compensation be e5nhanced;._”i?urther submission
made is”‘tvh.at’gtlh.e:Qrnultiipiierl applieable is 15 and not 14.
Learned trevlie ‘olnha ruling of this Court in IL}?
2009 subrriitdihat in case of bachetor, deduction
shaltbg ‘1 / 3rd and. 1f_1__o_t :;;0%.
3″‘. _On the other hand learned counsel for the
Awinsurancecorn-pany argued that the Apex Court in a recent
dec~i.sio1j;v’of. AC} 1298 has clearly held that in respect of
a bachetldr, deduction will have to be made at 50% towards
O’ ,the_ir expenses and as such no increase is called for.
ya’
Lo)
4. In the light of the above submission and the
Apex Court ruling in Sarala Verma and Others
Transport Company and Another, deducti_cin”‘*ito-ayards’_
personal expenses and living expenses ofv
have to taken at 50% and as such, in the_;case one-hand,
MACT has rightly deducted 50°/9 toyyards persoinaliieixpensiesii’A.
of the deceased. Income takeniiiiiilsnalsyo reasonaibieiifiand only
multiplier needs to be ‘In1.i1tiI3liieril’:1i3l3Iicable
would be 15 and conseVqn:entiiyi_,:lander’ of loss of
dependency, tl1ei’appe1la_nt:3 to a further sum
of ‘~h:eads,”‘compensation given is
just and i
Appeal»is,i”–th’erefore,lallowed to the extent of the
amotginit s.being’in_cireasie:d by Rs.18,000/– which will carry
Award is modified accordingly by allowing
thus. Enhanced amount be paid to the
clairnant_’s§ -. «
sale
E3335.
krnv