IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
BATE!) THIS 'I'I{E 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 201.3
BEFORE
THE IiON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V JAGAN1§A'::{§1A;f;% E' H
M.F.A. No.14124 OF :a0'0'*r{M7V) .;
M.F.A. N0.14126 OF 2007':(MV] - =
M.F.A. NO.14124/07 » '
BETWEEN
1. SMT. GOURAMMA, A
w/0 LATE BENAKAPPA.
AGED
occ. HQUSEI*£O3;,D,A"~ _
SINCE DEAD. BY I_JRS:_j.g_
1A. SMT. si}1;.ocH:ANA,_E'
W /0 LA'1"'E MARISIDDAPPA METI,
E~AGE1E)'41}\.yE:..ARs, " EEEEE ~ *
v.E'o,c«<:_, HQ'USILHOLD.
V13'; :~¢'.;¢mf':)V1i;s:~1xvAR,
S /0 LATE MARISEDDAPPA METL
AGED. 23.__'YE/XRS.
Eoécc. STUDEN"£'.
'~éEfC;,;s'RI JAGAIHSHWAR,
_-S/0'LA'1'E MARISIIDDAPPA MEITE,
AGED 21 YEARS.
l\J
OCC. STUDENT.
1D. SR1 SHIVAPRAKASH.
S / O LATE MARISIDDAPPA MEET}.
AGED 19 YEARS.
OCC. STUDEINT.
ALL ARE R / O BAGALVVAD.
NOW AT HIRE KOTNEKAL.
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR.
[BY SR1 PRAKASH YELI, ADV.,)
AN9
1. VEZNKAPPA @ VENKOBA. x
5/0 VADDAYYA, AGE MAJOR."'*«,
occ. DRIVER OF TRACTOR/
TRAILOR, R/O SIRWAR", " V ~
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR. ;
2. RAMANA-.GO_UDVA;7,-~.._ "< ~ ~
S/O HULIGEPA .MALIG%NAi;% MANAGER,
IVUVNITED-.I_ND_IA INSURANCE co. LTD.
-'._p NO.58,.V.V SUKHANI COMPLEX,
""-«R;A1_C»HUR. " ...RESPONDENTS
-M fANV}:Nm2A REDDY, ADV. FOR R3)
~
M.F.A.. NO. 14 1 26/2007
BETWEEN
SR} 8 SHASHIBUSHAN.
8/0 E BASAVARAJ.
AGED 26 YEARS,
OCC. EX.-BUSINESS 81
PROPRIETGR [CEMENT DEALER)
OF BASAVESHWARA ENTERPRISES” .
AND AGRICULTURIST.
R/O BASAVESHWAR COLONY.
RAICHUR. ‘
{BY SR1 PRAKASH YELI, ADV..) *
AND
1. VENKAPPA @ VENKOBA, j;
s/0 VADDAYYA4, A{}_E 1~._/Lmora, _
occ. DRIV1«::2.ft)F A
TRACTOR/TRA1L4oR;%% V %
R/O SIRWAR, TQ.
DIST.
2. RAJ;/1ANA_Gu()U.L_)A’;
‘ * S’/0..fH’UI,(1VGEPA MALIGOUDAR,
AGED 66 YEARS.
“AGRI; _& OWNER OF
T’I?AC_17OR”‘IJ.Q.’I§A’?36 /$5174,
R/C,__C}iIAQPg}§§I~IAVI.
VTQ. MAN?VI,’DIS’l’. RAICHUR.
“mt: DMSIONAL MANAGER,
‘U_N1j1_’F;jD INDIA INSURANCE Co. LTD.,
..ff.~P.i3. No.53, V V SUKHANI COMPLEX.
‘ RAiCHUR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1 MANVEINDRA REDDY. ADV. FOR R3)
$**>f<
M.F.A. NO. 14124/07 IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT…A~ND._
AWARD DATED 8.6.2007 PASSED
NO.5S0/2006 ON Tm; FILE OF THE PRESIi}.I.:"'€Cv~'.._._"I.
OPPICER, PAST TRACK COURT M II. MEMBER, M;ACT.'
RAICHUR. PARTLY ALLOWING 'THE _CLA;'IvI'I'PII:*I'I*rION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING"ENPLANC_EMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
M.F.A. NO. 14126/07 I:’:’§._v’I~’ILEDA’U1:\3DE}F{v’SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST’II’P»T’RE JUDOMEN*Ij AND
AWARD DATED 8.6.2007f…__ _P.–ASSED “IN MVC
NO.579/2006 ON THEPILE’ OE MEMBER, MACT 8:
PRESIDING OFFICER, “EAST, fTRAC.’I:.,’COURT M II,
RAICHUR. PARTLY ALLQWINGO”IfHE~~.VCL§géII?vI PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND ‘~.SE_E3KjING’ ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSAOTICiN’.V
TH:[_£SE- ON FOR ADMISSION.
THIS DAY-THE COURTD.E–L.IvERED THE FOLLOWING:
QIJDOGMENT
t_WO are disposed Of finally with the
O’CO1″ISeI’It; learned counsel for the parties.
7i’he;. ‘:/;C1a1’1’I1E1I1″ILS before the tribunal preferred
MFA NO. 14124/O7 is by the mother, wife
“Children Of deceased Marisfiddappa Meiii.
the motorcycle had come on the wrong side and
therefore the tribunal put the fault on the driver of the
motorcycle to an extent of 30%. In this regard
counsel also refers to the document produce:f£””l3},lrV”*
claimants. As far as the quantuin is (zone;-ern’e.d’,’*~.it«is _u
argued by him that deceased it
looking after the lands andV’iltl:xereforelVlix’IACV”t’
income at 33,000/– per mont1_{1__.:”-.In-.order’ tolishotv that
deceased was also a conti’act.ori_l;3Veibifethe accident no
documents were produced*and”EX.P..V£4z’W’hieh is relied
on by in_”respect of the contract
work of ll-9l97~V98 accident occurred in the
year 2004. in absence of very evidence to
Show/.t:ha::tV.”iuist. prior”‘t’o’ the accident deceased was doing
lL:sQ1*:t;rae€.,V:W.ori~{,aincome taken by the tribunal cannot be
fatilted. 2
the light of the aforesaid submission put
7l”OAI'”\}’J,’c§tL_’i€Ll and after having gone through the material on
‘lw
;-*”‘V-is
9
record and in particiilar the sketch map indicafing the
position of the vehicle as well as the panchanama drawn
after the accident, it is clear that the road and pi.avl_;e_lof
accident is very wide. In fact the road was .
and there was 6 feet width mud Ifciad of _-either)side”oi\.
the tar road. The accident. occurred iSi’LlCl’k._€{‘*\_Vayl that?’
the motorcycle went beneathstiie tr.2i’etor.. _
circumstances, the tribnnal VVA£1.ERlLiAl;iSlfifi’€Cl holding that
the motorcycle came got into
the position as Unless the
driver of’ aisoéu; fault. entire blame
cannot hut of the tract.or. Moreover,
panChanaméi”~Vshows. tl:_elbreak marks of the tractor for
o.boL’ttl7 £0 8. feet.lllWi’i’i’ch mean that the tractor was at a
lh_ig}fi_spe:ed.larid_:tiij2.e accident could not be avoided. Thus
on the tractor driver and 30% on the
3″-w__ld.eoeasedV__ix/Iari.siddappa Meti cannot be said to be an
.e4Ij1″oI3_e.&)us finding in the light of the evidence on record
l arid documents produced by the clain1ants themselves.
5%?
Ii.
36,30,000/–. MAUI’ has awarded ?.4~,32.000/« under
this head. ‘Fherefore the difference will be 31,98,000/~.
Towards loss of consortium 310,000/v more is awarded.
Thus the enhancernent will be 32,08,000/«. Hm-veyfer.
as deceased himself was responsible to the ext’.c:n_t*«.Qf.VV
30% to the accident, the above amount gets ~
30%. In otherwords the actual enha4nce_n§eni:riiwilli
?.1,45,600/M which amount: is to paid”
Insurance Company. The ari1o_nntl’~wi’il””carry
interest at 6% p.a. from J’t.1:1€ date’ ‘claim petii:ion..¥E
C0IIliii*w=._V4v’tpflthe* compensation in MFA
N0.14~l26l/O7’ a sum of €63,613/~
_.._and the absence cf the claimant placing medical
“:_Vevi:denc:e_indicating any disability being caused to him,
the c01npe–i1jsa'{::iVoi1 awarded appears to be just. and
[reasonable requiring no e11l’3ancen1ent..
.23?
/
E1. For the above 1’ea.s0ns, MFA No.1/11324/07f_ is
allowed in part. to the extent of enhallctemelit and
N0.14126/O7 is dismissed.
12. Excess amount shaii
Ir1sura11<:e Company within fozgujweeks.