IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE ZSRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 :PRE}SENT: THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K.PATIL< L AND THE HbN'BLE MR.JUS'I'I_C.E»H.S.,KEh7il519§.7§T1\?"A'_' M.F.A.N0. 83840? 2095 tMV1' Between: 1. Smt. A.nuradha.1\/i.S.S Aged 51 years. V W/0. Late D.K.AI1jan«._ 2. Master A Aged" 25--.ye+f1rs,":f:.; " S/oi. Late D;.K._.fA:ojAa1?..MV 3. 1\/Iaste:v}'i.A.V.iVe'la.:';-- Aged 15-years, ._ A ._ S S,/0. Latel1").,K.'AnjaVn. * 4. l'SmtE."tDe"Vamma, 'Aged 9.5*y_e'ar__s, Late Kenehegowda, A Reporte_d..dead. Iflowefvrerdby oversight Tribunal has shown her name in cause title by . over, sight. to " * LRs of A4 as already on record x as appellant No. I to 3. 3"' Appellant is mi 1' being represented by ' other and ,3 ''''''''"n'''mmM'Mm»'w I I 6- natural guardian lsi Appellant. All R/at.No.808, 2nd Cross, H.R.B.R Layout, 18' Block. Banaswadi, Bangalore-560 043. (By Sri. O. Mahesh, Advocate) And: The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. Depot, Shanthinagar, K.H. Road, A Bangalore--56O O27. p V pp _. ...... ..Respondent
(By Sri. ‘
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘I U
This MFA. is Vfiled.4_U-/Vs. 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and awaid dated: 31.03.2005 passed in MVC No.
3089/1995″on the—.file “–:)_f”the VI Addl. SC] and IVIACT,
Bangalore,’ {SCCH– .02}, “partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation ._and*seek1r1g enhancement of compensation
With«iCnte”rest at 1′?-_’»%___1_’-_’_.A.
.A. coming on for Hearing this day,
‘lPAvT_IaL~ J…_dfel1vered the following:
:JUDG MENT:
appeal filed by the claimants is arising out
V impugned judgment and award dated
3&1;/03/2005 passed in MVC No.3089/1995 on the file
%.»;……
If
3% pa, from the date of petition till its deposit. ~-«Being
aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunai that
10% contributory negligence on the
deceased and dis–satisfied Wiith”‘
compensation, the appellants iéfhave
appeal seeking appropriate
4. We have by
the appeilants in appeal and
heard the ifor respondent-
Corporaticggi _ ,
by the appeliants
in thistappetalt Tribunal has erred in not
awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of
“‘:’dep’er1d’ency’«._and conventional heads and also failed to
“‘ta1§.e.into’..,con’sideration that, if the deceased was alive
he ‘””—-mig:htv””have getting additional increments and
eipr-emotions and other benefits in his service as per the
iaw laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts
T judgment and therefore, the impugned judgment and
%W
/”
1
X 12 X 11) instead of ?6,84,000/– awarded by the
Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
9. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding *
compensation under conventional__heads andVl”th:erefore, it it
needs to be modified. Having r;’t.~..ga1′:”._j1e xto lithe
circumstances of the case, we”‘–award’v~a surnt. of.:._i?1.5.§0O0/– = ‘
towards loss of consortium, a_:lsum,of €.l’G,f):QO/w.} towards
loss of estate, a sum of loss of love and
affection and a sum of “transportation and
funeral expenses.;5’ _. . ”
10. contributory negligence
at 10%, on deceased is concerned, the
same cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside
A. for_t’he reason’tI1at..,…_.it could be seen from the materials
‘aylai1abIe:”o;rit. that, bus has hit the motor cycle in
bumper and the same is not in dispute.
is also not in dispute that, driver of the bus
A “ll light the cigarette instead of driving the vehicle
and caused the said acfient and therefore, the said
J MM
1’
accident was solely due to the negligent driving by,» the
driver of the bus, as he is not supposed
Cigarette while driving the bus as per
conditions of the Corporation.
has not been looked into or eonlside-red
by the Tribunal while fixing negligence
at 10% on the part ofthe ‘Further, is clear
from the contents of jvarid the sketch
that, two right side.
Having thelrilatter, we are of the
considereld has erred in fixing
the at 10% on the part of the
deceased. anld’-.ti1’e’l’ is liable to be set aside and
it is set aside, fixing the entire liability on
the’-lrespozndenft»Corporation
Having regard to the facts and circumstances
it it it the case as stated above, the impugned judgment and
award’ passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.
/$1..
[O
The total Compensation payable comes to ?10,87-,-356/-
and the break– up is as follows:
Towards Loss of dependency ______m
Towards loss of consortium _– ” “1v~5,:jOOG/–
Towards loss of estate :,j.LO,.0’O0/-‘ ‘d
3
? .
Towards loss of love and affection ‘ ‘Sf. 2O_,OO_O/–“~=
: .3 ‘
?
Towards transportation and. fune1″a.IA X.
T ‘-
expenses ” T’ r
Total t’ 1VO;’8’t7-;35€;/-W
12. Accordingly, appellants is
allowed in p.§%1+{:i;flDl1d ‘i’;:”‘,”i’1€;:b and award
passed by .3089/1995 is hereby
modified,”‘1i:«tii}:y,g#§ on the Corporation
and of ?lO,87,356/– instead of
%’6,5l_.60O awarhded. the Tribunal. The enhanced
‘ ppcoinjpenpsation cornesto ?-4,35/756/–. The interest is awarded
at(_3%_ :.ii’oni–.the date of the petition till its realisation on
thejtotal’compensation of Rs.10,87,356/- instead of 30/0
‘ V awarded by the Tribunal.
Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced
‘ compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of
it receipt of a copy of this judgment and award with interest at
«_M_#___m_,W,…
10,215,356;-e””7’f”_f H
1]
6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisationen the
total compensation awarded.
Out of the enhanced compensation of
a sum of ?3,00,000/– with prop0’rti0nate
be invested in the Fixed Dep0sitA:’«Vi_rr-arry
Scheduled Bank, in the namrejsr. the ‘appe11a::1£t”r»r5.’1 for a h’
period of five years reneewahletttfbryyancthefftve years
with liberty to her to accrued on it,
periodically. x ‘t u
The Rs.1,35,756/- with
prop0rti01’1at.e:’ihterest «’be””reI£eased in favour of the
appellaht 1’Jcs.’ V “proportion, immediateiy, on
deposit by utthel
.. «flaouffice is dir’ecte_dA to draw the award, accordingly.
Sd/-~
Judge
Sd/-»
Judge