ax:-nu urnur-uu-I 1 u\7Il \s\l|.ll\l \J'l' l\I'|l\I"IlIF.f|I\l| f}I\'l'1 \.¢\J'LJflF LII' l\.l'\flIVI\Il'll\l§ l'Il\,I'l Ha'
IN THE I*fiGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BAN
IJATEID THIS Ti-E 3.3?" DAY {I}? _
PRESENT
'm1=; H<3N*BLE 4' 7
AN'C3=..._V %
THE HOWBLE
M.F.A.m.:c»gé$5,§j;0€x3%(M\§fc.:w
M.F.A.No.9?ggsz;.3_t3;3_§g1g;_y3
M.F.A.Nn.10846'¢'i§,(}Q6::: _
1.
3mt.”t:%;7R;sn§é:1<a§§.
W,Io*:.at.e 1%.. nmegunmfia, ‘ 7
Ageci abs at 43Vye._2f&..*s -~ ., ” 2
2.
D,’ Lain’: N . Mazzgjgnaflma,
&Aged17 yum.
A
. “VSf<:;~ fig; Mar1ju.nafha,
Ag_a{1.a§3out 15 years.
QA _ Apgiellanta 2 &3 are minors
*» V ‘ “Reprwentad through natural
mother (3. Renal-zra Apwflanta
x -V§(By Sri K.T.Gurud¢va Prasaci, Advocate)
‘ ‘ é 3 ‘ * .Cn§§oad«, “Bangak>r¢-560 O0}. .
‘T’.’,”” — -u-nnau–urII\fl rlaufl uuum or KAImA’IAKA I-mi!-I L.’U|JlH Ur nnlmnmnn mun Luunl ur Iv-\lu1HIHnn mun I».
AND:
1. United India Insuraxme Ca’, Ltti,
Rqional Ofiice,
KSFC Building, M.G.Road, _- ”
Bangalcsrc-560 001 by its A 2. Smt K.C.S¢6t , Wit; Pundalik, Major, ' _ >
Govt. Hospital Hireknrur, ” F
Haveri Diem-ict. V *
(By 81% O.Ma.hcsh, Adwcatév fad’ B-:1 .
R-2 serwadfip V V’ ”
This %m:1:=r %mtmV 123(1) :11′ MV Act
against; the jucigegiient”a.*1c1-{‘.’jawar:i 27.01.2006
passad in Nwa.’43-59] 04 pi; “i}:..u3Wfiie of the Principal
MACT & Chief Judge, smaii causes, Bangalore,
partly allowing ‘”t:§1e” «:~i§.:%i::t1.T»p~33:it§ao’n’ far compensation &
seeking crxhanccmem; GE.’ jeo::1;3i.=:miati:>:1.
fi.E.A.§0.»…?.728[ ”
1. 00., Ltd.,
Appellant
fE.3§ Sri;’O.Mahesh, Advocate]
W/0 Late 15!. Manjunatha,
Aged abcaut 43 yassars.
—-. —-«–¢un -ursuuruur-u v
lI!$’IU-‘\l”€”IU’lIuU ‘WWI I’l”‘I”éI’1HI1\I’ I”IF’TI_f’I \u\IYE” \’JI’ I\H!\I”EI3I’IF%? ‘l7l’IVHf’l'”Ifl”
m
2. M. Nirmala,
D/0 Late H. Margunatha,
Aged about 1′? years.
3. Mfiagabhushan
S,!cs.1atc N.Manjunath.a .
Aged about 15 years.
Rcspendents 2 and 3 ar::=fi:i:r;oraV”
reprmenwd through mural’ ”
Allarcrwidjngat __ x
Madawara Cclony, Ma – wasréx *Poa.t,’*~.’;..
Near 1–m?3c1«.ag1, «V ”
Ba11ga1ore,3l§i”mj:1:p}*1Ta;1ui-;. ”
4.
W] o_. 1′.-__Ir’:’:a.’;3i.v’@1_ .
Ifizavsixfi …RE$PC}NDENTS
(By s:ikK.T.c3u:€:;déva§LPr%aaad,
sri ‘:~1.fi.R.
:. — C’.K.Lokesh, Advocates for R–1 ts R-3)
– _ isA under seam’ 11 1?3(1} of MV Act
againstv,’vti:«eV.MLji:dgement and award dated 2′?’.C31.2DC.l6
vvi:1v..1§ri’l§1~5,.vI’Io.4359/O4 on the file cf the Principal
MAC’? 85 Judge, Ceurt of small causcs, Eangalore:
(SCCH-1},’ .Vmsra1*ding campemafinn :3? Rs.6,?6,C33D/-
__ caatg. & cunmzt interest at 8% RA E-011: the data of
H ” ‘ — pefitficn till realisation.
_’ These afils coming on for hearing this day,
‘ N.K.Pat31. J, deliverw the following:
%—“”””””””””‘
-. _. …-mun-nun l’lIl.fl’l l.UUKi Ur KAKNATAKA HIGH COURF OF KARNAIAKA HIUI-I LUUIII Ur Iuu(NAiAnA mun u
J£fDGMEE\’T
These two apfils arise cut of the V’ V
and award dated 27.j1v«20s0e/-.
2.% 2006 is rm by the clainaanm
cla.1n11ng’ ‘ ea-nha1 an the ground
that rm gcfxzount méfgrdaé by the Claima Tribunal is
floss of dependency’ and ‘loss of Iowa
and eufi:’&¥.?i<?3v£1' V".;t&'»1:1*:'zT§;;hfiat awarcied any amount {awards
of h'
M,F.A.Ha.9°728] 2006 is filed by the
Cempany contending tlaat the amaunt
by the Claims Tribunal in excaassive in as much
Jas the Ciaixns Tribunal has takcn the 'm<::ome of the
A
'- '— – '"— –*'*'"I ''5 IIl'IIIhI'l'IIl'll'I-!1 IIIVJIT \-o\-IIJIII LII" l\l|IiI'l'\II\I\.F\ l"Ii\JI'I \¢\JIJK| \JI' l\I\Kl'I\il'\I'\l'| l"II\1I"I \a'
dweased at Rs.6,()O0,f- p.m., which is
and determirxafion of eompenaafion new-szziiédis»
dependencry' is exceassive
the award passed
4. ‘Iherefore, the
Campany both ‘_ 13:2» ‘fiircalfiant these.
appeals .
5. that appellant –
appe1l.anta–c:]aimanm 2
decaascd lair: Marljunatlrxa.
They claiming canapensatiorz
Company far a sum of
‘ R3..1~3.__V,25gv;£§§3v0/- on acmunt of the death ef deceased
” Man’. the mad wafic accident that task place
0:1,’; at awut H145 pm. When thlg’: tiaewsad
VA ‘§é:1e_3 driving the lorry bearing rwfistration Na.TDS 515′?
had parked the said lorry on P.B.Road near
Shervada cross, I-Iubli, a tmpo rmismaizion
N.KA-12?-34?’8 came from the opposite direction in aa
rash and negligent manna: and dashed the
lorry, as 3 restflt of which, Margiunath
fracturaa and on acmunt of t.h§ ing’uriwe’
was shifted in M.S.Ramaia}:1 }§9spit*$J; ‘.
he suczctlmbad to eiglét VV;s£>:’.t§§ ‘
best medical treatment the only
6. The had came
up hefinre far considerafion on
27. 1 % éfmr careful evaluation
of evidence and other
reifi’-3″}: 9oi:’:. rd has allzxwad the claim
“”” awardesd mmpcnsaticzn of
interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of
..r….’nmm- mun uuuau ur IKAKNAIAKR HII.-in uuulu Ur nnxunuusn ruurl LUUKI ur nnlmmmm nlwrl U-
datc sf dapesit.
—. in
The aubmiaainn af the learfi Counsel
931733′; N M 31- 18 for the o1a1m.a.n’ ta is that the: Claim’ 3 Tribunal
.has wmmitsed a grave error in adapting ’13’ multiplier.
The deaeaaad was agw about 43 years at the time of
. -uu-u-1r1-ruv-n 1¢l\’lll \u\I\il\i \Jl’ I\l”‘ll\I’l\IF\l’\l\ I’II\3’l’I E-LICK’ LII’ P\.I’\IlI’I’|II’|!\:H l’II\JI’I In’
accident. and the: proper multipiiar is ‘H’. it
has erred in the insome sf
Ra.6,0QO{- p.n:1. It is the: case {:5 me
cieoeaaed was .
being the owrxcr cum
income of the and
appmpriatc the light of the
judgnlent cf case of Sarla
Vemaa V§ .:_ Carporafian and
1293. Further, the
an ermr in net awarding
just and reasgfixabia txzxwmvcis ‘lass nf iove
2 and 3 are the minor
» –.C1aims Tribunal naught to have
” ~ each instead awardmg”
Tribuzlal also erred 1’11 not awardmg’ 3113′
tawards ‘I033 of estate’ and awaxdmg of only
inwards ‘transportafinn 85 funeral expenses’
is 9350: inadeqtxate and mquircwz erukxancemaant by
AM
………….-W. ruurl Luulu ur ISAKNATAKA HIGH COURF or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT pr manasam mean u
mcdiiying the eampensatien awarded by
Tribunal, kj %
5, As a.gaz’:m3t this, -2 & igmgégez Ira;-< x't§r1e _ 1
Imumnce Company, inter
amount awarded by the
and the income of': 'aha: bean
assmsed at I2a…'i"1,C3(Z'.*'V(:I'}:"('–' he submitted
that the by the Claima
fgggified, by rmzucing the
all other impacts, the
consideratinn of the rnaterial
on; c-ansideraticn thc naturc crf
.' V. " . ~ . A_ sustéifiéd, has awarded reasanable
and thamfore interfercnca by this Court
AA 7. We have hmrd married Counsel appearing far
clahtzzzanm and learned Ccunscl appearing for the:
Insurance Company for czormiszierable length sf time.
..r……….–….-. rnurl uuulu ur nmmmnxn HIGH COURI or KARNATAKA HIGH couur or Icnnmnuum HIGH (.1
12
:5′ In the light of the facts and cf
the case as stated above? the
claixnants is allawed in part. >judg_ei1:a§§;1:~v
dated 27.1.2006 passed in .
file of the Prl. MACT az1<3;_'i";§1it:f";§1.{cig,¢, sm;i%
Causes, Bangalore is uV:f;33::35ci=i,i_fiai.§é1& fiV:=._1I:;3f9r;}'a.:
1} Loss cf depu§:nde114c§:ég':_V"' :V 12a.5,72,C}%DO{ –
231.955 cf A Rs. 10,001')!-
3) Loss A Rs. 29,090}- "'3 1*'95?>f'i%%~'¢ Ram 20,0001- 5} axpensm Rs, 10,0003" 6) 'W Rs. 29,900]-
Tustal Ra.’?’,52,.€}(3£3,’ ~
are entitled ta mmwnsatixan af
.. R§.’é,;’:’:;§,OQ0/- aa agairm: R3.6,76,00Q;’- (total
A’ Rs.’?6,{}{30/~} along with ixmtexmt @
‘ 13.51. from the: date cf petitican till the: 6.331: of
realizafian.
‘__#_____,______,,_…+
-an-Inn vr’|Irll\f\ |”II\7I’l K-\J’JK’ U!’
The appeal filed by 12115 Inaurance C¢mpg.:§z.4::3tands
dismissed aa devoici of merim.
The Infiuranca C{)fl1p&II}’ :iéV nfize’ AV
erxhanced wmpenaaticm W131 zliitgffit “thev £;’.’$’}a1’fijs%
Tribunal within four of @
copy cf the judgeme’m,_
Gut oifttge a sum of
Rs..25,0(?§!*C’%.?{*’ _; shed} be
depqfi-i1;&ci’VA'”i¥.1′ name Qf each of the
Natienaliseci or Schadulad
bank, The accrueti intereat
by the mother for the weifare af
% and 3.
amsunt of F€s.2Eis,OG(3]– with
.. pgogfiaifionam intarmt shall be mlcased in. favour of
A’ No.1 — mother imzrandiahely an deposit {sf {he
‘ * a.mc:unt by the Irmuranee Cempany.
%.,../