High Court Karnataka High Court

Skekhar Kotary vs The Oriental Insurance Co Limited on 27 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Skekhar Kotary vs The Oriental Insurance Co Limited on 27 May, 2011
Author: N.K.Patil
to

Peenya 21*" Stagel
Bat1gal:3re-58.

(By Sri.  Srinivas, Adveeate £93:  W;  V _ .  
Notice to R2 is dispensed w"it.l'1 V/0.'datIe_d O}/»(§_;3/201 l} 
    ' V'  

This MFA is filed U/S l1Tv3_{1}_Vf M"x7._Aet, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 1-3;'~I.§Z--,f2'0,Q'? passed in MVC No.
4071/2006 on the file .QfthelII 'Ae_id§ti«anal Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Member, ' ,' =._E3ar:gal0re (SCCH~4},
partly allowing V the Clfiliffl~_p€§ll;:Ol'1"'"~fOl'fQO~fl1p€I1SE1tlOI1 and
seeking enhanfgement :0fee1np»ensat§on-.  '

This MP'A  for ;Ad.i*m:ssiaon, this day, the Court
delivered the §o'llowi1'1g:'  l ' " 

E;1;§DGMENT
T1113' app.e.al:.d:V'E:>_t%"'t_l:"1e«"elaimants is directed against

theA,-j1Ai'dgfi..1eI1t and award dated 13"!

t"*l Ded3nbev2OO7[§aé&aih1hLVfiClw14O7l/20O5$bythe

    Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member,

M_¢':¢r  Claims 'Tribunal~IV, Bangalore (SCCH--

4},  shaft, Tribunal') for enhancement ef

2  xeempetzsatien an the greund that, the eompensatien of

u§:§,56lCiQO/~ awarded in favraur of the Claimants as

x " agatnet their elatra fer ?2(?//EGG Lalszhse is inadequate.

  é  H "L" 'f?§:s;5cr§der;té V' '



3. It is the ease of the.'appe}Ia'ri'téf':.that,  

deceased was aged about 2iV=.A_ye;1Ars}? at,.Stzideiit-i._o£.;i!'i

semester in BE. in Civii -Engifieeiing ;ai:'gi._haIe; aiicit";

heaithy prior to the aeeideifitgi' It farther case
that the deceased  e~.§;i.i:fe.e of Iitreiihood and

on account of his t»h'e._'.i'amiIy is under
great mentai shook  ag;ony'«..at:d 'hz;1.§ lost the love and

affection _..anTd_  the._'_:é.oeia'1 Land. firianeiai security in

theirvlifev   theywhave to be Compensated
reascgnabifi  

 On  death of the deceased, the

appeivianta» petition before the Tribunal,

  ctompefieation against the respondents. The

V .eaidC1.ai’n1’*oe’tition had come 11 for consideration before

on 133″ December 2907. The Tribunal,

aftei’..ooi1eidering the relevant materiai available or: file

2 after appreciation of the orai and eloeurneritary

evideriee, allowed the eiaim petition in part, awardingf a

Wsuai of ?3,§§,§QG;’~ wider §ii’fei*e::t iieaeisg with §%

fly):/»A,«<'/"'

:9

interest per annum, from the date oftill

date of deposit. Being dissatisfied»_§§¢1thgthe'c;n'a.1'3.tnnjrpf '

Compensation awarded by Trihunai, ether:appe}1e:'n.té"tp

are in appeal before this Coiirt,' seeking 'enhancement of

compensation. ._ _ _

5. I have heard’ appellants and
learned C0un’$:e1.__app’e%iring reepondent Insurer,
for quite _ V ‘t “” H

counsel for the parties,
aftep1.:v(‘3g1rehr1’tpertieai’efthe judgment and award passed

by the going through the original

reefords ma<i'e,_e£Vé1i1ab1e§ it is seen that the occurrence of

't V. – paeeiadeizt and theflreeultant death of the deceased are not

V "d,iSp_tiete';' The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and

doetumeniemjz evidence and other relevant material

asreilahtehven file, awarded a sum Gf €'3.,36,000f~– towards

2 "Evens ezf dependency, assessing the income ef the

""–rieeeased at €51,000/» per month, éedueting 50%

u ""tw”ar&$ the personal expenses of the deceased are he

was a heeheiert enné adeptning rnnit§p};i.e1″ ef ‘I41 hearing

6

regard to the age of the younger parent, mo1:her,_bei::1g

42 years. However, having regard to the

circumstances of the ease, I am of the

monthiy income assessed by _1fhe__Trihiiriaxa’_fi.s'”*oh. the’

lower side and has to be re~assesse’dd.*~’:T h’a$5i:1g

regard to his age and the’»faet..V_thaf”he “lverge-L’

of completion of Coupled
with the year of aecideht; [ deem it fit and
proper to refasse_ss kt ?’5,000/~ and
deduct expenses.

ACeordi1’1vg1Sf;5V»d.’ towards loss of
deperideirey V . out to ?4,20,000/~ (ie.

?2, 500/ “:~:,dd1 2 f__14~’,}” asbddagainst ?’3,3€>§OO0/ – awarded by

«««««

the Tribunal has erred in not

axafardirrg-‘i._ reasonable Compensation {awards the

eor1v’erii;id:’1a1 heads also. Therefere, having regard so

‘roheffaets and circumstances of the ease and ihe number

N hf deeendehrs, E deem ii fit {,0 award a sum of ?45§G(}§/~

{awards cerrverzéiohal heads, such as Loss of Eeve and

:55
e 2?

«.55
V

;/

,,..w~°’

?1,09,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per axgnum,
within four weeks from the date of receipt of c:o.p3€’i:1E7A1e

judgment and award.

Immediately on such depeeeyfi V’

Company, a sum of ?E’>0,0{)(Z;3′;;{‘~

interest shall be depositedVin: Fi;::edA.Depoei;t’v_:tfiewfiaroe of

the second appellant./;.*nothAe’:*« deeeaeewd: in any
Nationa1ized/ of five years,
renewable fo1f_ reserved to
her to u.rith’d’r:é_w
~– with proportionate
intereei~_&sh;’_aII favour of the appellants 1
and 2_,uin uetfuei immediately.

4. jio oféiw””‘aiVard, accordingly.

Sifef
EQEEE