IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 08'~"DAY 012 FEBRUAR? 2o§;9% T Q BEFORE. THE HON'BLE MR. JUST}.'CI§, mama BYEa;x «R%Ei)1)X? * . MISCELLANEOUS FIRST 1§o.m713F2<;o7 (MV) BETWEEN: %% ; % F A 1. Srnt.Guc[ha, WfoR.avi k1.;2r1:1;.TVL»V." 2; " 2. R- s..,au.;,.;:A.,,;;.;;,._.%% % A 3. R. s%5»yetha,k6y.§;gArgA Die . _ 4. C V' - A C';~h£3»xrd¢g::~yvda, ' _"Sio C}ji!:k«apur__asa1e 5.' Si:it. 61 years V~L'o Ghcwdashetty * A. 2 and 3 are minors , _Ré:presented by their mether & haiural guardian Sml. Geetha, R} All Residing at Nu. 6861A 1" Main, Vijayanandanagara 6 (By Shri. Shfipad V Shaslri, Ad vacate) AND: 1. Orimial Assuranca Company' Limited? DO XII Jayalakshmi Mansions __ 2nd Floor, 100156 J Dr. Rajkumar Road Bangalore-560 (H0 By its Managcr 2. Ranjii ' Sic K. G.G9p.§la1;rishna.V '. % Residing".a!Ni :. 6S5 " }"Mz;1in Roaii;vB,..;<;.N'::gué'r~a__ -- ' Bangalomgefiéo 022 ,. ' RESPONDENTS
(By Slgrifi A. Advucaie for Rcspondtsni N0. 1,
” ‘~N_otic!: Elesggndent’ 2 dispensed with)
3R#***
._ First Appeal is filed under Section
l73(i»)u_ of rim Motor Vehicles Act aging: the judgement and
award 02.02.2007 passed in MVC. Na- l0OL=’2006 on the
fila of the. 14″‘ Additiona} Judge, Member, Motor Accidents
V. I *J;!aimsTribut1a1, Court at’ Small Causes. Metropolitan Area,
‘ ” Bangalaie, partly allowing thc claim pctition for compenmticm
‘ “a’nd~?:tc,
3
3. The Tribunal has ncgatcd the salary uihv;
dtzacteaseci that was pmduccd to establish may
Rs.8,000i- per month, as a
mainly an the gmund that lhcauihor «Sf. Vriuji’
examined as a witness- in adopi
Rs.S,000;’– as the or; this gmund
that sinus the ii cuuld be
prasumcti lhzfl a’ of Rs.5{){)0/- 3 per
per annum as
being applied the multiplier of ‘I 5’ in
awarding th%锑i:a;§s rgfloés iiependency at R:s.6,7 5,0003-. While
.’ V. “ih¢V’»’if;bt§i1a1″}1aAs consider the possibiiity of the deceased
receiving higher salary ever 3 period 0? time.
T1A1é”-furf.;§*iea’~§§£§aiieniiun that thc dwczased was 32 and not 35, am the:
‘B:+:;::»i__:; (fiat: considering Ihtt age uf his parents, his age could be
as 35 is yet-.1 another infirmity on which the present. appeal is
Tileal.
é
While the counsel for the Iespomienls would
the appeal.
The above two grounds
The reasoning of the tribunal oiahiizc al:;ovt:
sustained.
4- The _ of the salary
certificate l!1:’omtV:.laim and the tribunal
could no{ salary at Rs.S,000f- per
month The accidont
was of [ho yoéir oannol be said that a person working
. V2i’o”:§o;$¢3rvié§c:s{y was earning oniy Rs.5,G00!-. The
ihemibre, safely be accepted, in which
V VV _ evtzfit, tho ‘an§’iual income ought to be taken at Rs.96,0{)0:’- and
.4 .o,.’§1R¢:r.”dcfli:o.ling R~.~;.24,000f–, the same: ought to be adopted for
-‘ the dependency. The age: of the doccascd as reflccled
{he records would be the age furnished without an ulterior
motives of soaking enhanced compensation . There is no reason
8
RV
why the same ought not to be applied, in \Nhi£?;!’}., t!::’sfl’¢:.’.g I”£’i..L,:’ the
multipiicr would be ‘I6’.
Hcsnoc, the appeal is allowed. are
an mhanccd wmpcnsaiiuli ‘ Rs. i
R:s.24,0-‘3{)xl6)wi[h inlet:-;s£V_Aa£ ‘6’”3£?i{ vibe date of
claim till the date 01′ paymt§htj;’ A z