IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 18" DAY OF NOVEMB'1'i;-Ru.4':2C5:1f1j"'
PRESENTW-_ N
THE HONBLE MR. JUDTICE "
THE HON'BLE
M_\_/1.
=M.F.A.~N'O--. z;68'_5;,2Db6tI$/11':
M.F.A.No.5463/:a0g_z§[1\zrv}* D
BETVV ...__EE.I\E.:
1. SM}.'.INDRANI'q ,_
W/OI;-.A'I'EVG'._RA.MA£2HANDRA
;'AGE: 60'-YEARS '
" QCC MAID' 3E...::2_vANT
SR1' ~AN.AI~s.DA
RAMACHANDRA
. ' AG1::;"Djn{;2DI:YEARs
o_0c:_.r;=:ooL1E
3. SRfYA£'ANGOVAN
A S/O LATE G RAMACHANDRA
H _,-'AGE: 40 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
V' ""4. SMT SHAKUNTHALA
W/O SUBRAMANI
AGE: 37 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE WIF
M3'
5. SMT GEETHA
W/ O RAVIKUMAR
AGE: 35 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE WIFE
6. SRI MURUGE
S/O LATE G RAMACHANDRA
AGE: 33 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
7. SR1 SAMPATH
S/O LATE G RAMACHANDRA '
AGE: 43 YEARS * ._
OCC: COOLIE
RESIDING AT NOLTC', 45* I\_i!.'AVG'"I'1".T..__1"~'?.O';'S1Z_),
KALYANA NAGAR, 'M_UDA1.,:=BAL_YA_ " .
BANGALORE - 72, * Ln, APPELLANTIS
[BY SRI.SUR';%?SEf.LII/IV LATU=iR"i 'V
AND:
1. THES,ECRE'rARy'-- _ '
ST.JOH~N'S-SCHO'OL'«...V
No.4, PAPAREDDY PALYA
_~ 1*~1AGARAEAv'I 2..N.P. STAGE
'S'BANGALG_RE M 72
9I'HE' MANAGER
3 NEW' INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
'-...UNI_'I"1'.I3jUAILDING, MISSION ROAD.
BANGALORE -- 27. ...RESPONDENTS
., '{SY...SR1".A.N.KR1SHNA SWAMY -- adv. FOR R2,
* NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 23.10.10)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
I 'AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2005
PASSED IN MVC NO2262/OI ON THE FILE OF THE XI
ADDL. JUDGE, MEMBER, IVIACT~7, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE [SCCH~--12],
PARTLY ALLOVVING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
___,f,~¢v
3
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST AT 12% PA.
M.F.A.NO.-4685/2006{IVIV}
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE cO,"LT'D;,~ I
REGIONAL OFFICE, UNITY BU1I,DINc_g~ ..
MISSION ROAD, V _
BANGALORE--560 O27 V
BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
(BY SRI.C.R.RAVISHANKAR --«..ADi.%_;_';
AND:
1. SMT INDR.AN.1_
AGED A;BOjm'VeQ°yEiARS "
W/O5-LATF, RAMAQILAN-DRA A
smAAm
AGED ABOU'-1742 '
S/O LATE 'RAMAOEEENDRA
3. _ SR1 YALANOOVANI"
.. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
'S:/SO IATE G RAMACHANDRA
I '" SIIAKUNTHALA
* S«AO«ED_AI3'OUT 37 YEARS
.53' '
I ' w/O SDBRAMANI
GEETHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
, 'gw/O RAVIKUMAR
SR1 MURUGA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/ O LATE G RAMACHANDRA
SRI SAMPATH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/ O LATE G RAIVIACHANDRA
A44,"
,5" .as»«--»"""
if
.;IAPREEIANT
4
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO '10, 47" MAIN ROAD,
KALYANA NAGAR, MUDALAPALYA
BANGALORE --~ 560 072
8. THE SECRETARY
ST.JOHN'S ScI~IooL
No.4, PAPA REDDY PALYA
NAGARBAVI II STAGE 1
I3ANGALoRE--560 072 .,.-RESI>oN.DENTS-AIL§__
(BY SRI.S.S.MUIIIIANNARI3A-'ADV.
SRLSURESII M LATUR -- ADV,_F{)R R~ lv__TO._R'-_7} "
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER_SE_cT_1oN 1I'3{1] of' MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND 'AWARD DATED '22. 1 1.2005
PASSED IN MVC NO."29Q62/"-01i_ON'*--TPIE) FILE OF THE XI
ADDL. JUDGE, MEMBER, 'QOURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN. BANGALORE (SCCH~12},
AWARDING *_-.cOMREN:SATIoN.V 331,418,600/-- WITH
INTEREST 4@l-.,V6%>"'P_.A., FROM '_I'.H:L'.V DATE OF PETITION TILL
THESE A,IéPEjALS--..I5;'oNIINO oN FOR ADMISSION TRIS
DAY, N.K;I>_ATIL DE»LI\g7SERED THE FOLLOWING:--
JUDGMENT
appeals are by the claimants and
.ir’IlSIA1re1-T””;e_S1O;eOtively against the very Same judgment
and “?Il?Vé1i:d dated 22.11.2005 passed in MVC
No..4226’2/2001 on the file of the XI Addl. Judge,
“”T§\/lefhber, MACTAT, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan
ll WArea, Bangalore [SCCH–12) (hereinafter referred to as
‘Tribunal’ for Short).
2. The brief facg of the Case are as follows :-
fl_,_,,,.,w-wv
o——‘”””/–/m¢t
The claimants are the wife and children of the
deceased-SriRamachandra. They filed the claim” j_:j:.eti.tion
under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming _
against the insurance company and of
offending Vehicle, contending i:hat_-‘at?
on 12.12.2000 when the=.__decea.sed fond’
Amaravathi 3*” main Van
bearing No.KA 05 and negligent
manner and Due to
which, siistained fracture of
both ‘left__ hand, taken treatment in
Gayathri-. shifted to Victoria hospital
he too’h-.treatIr1ent from 14.12.2000 to 17.2.2001.
forvilltivgo Trnontvhs and then admitted to Victoria hospital
from 2.4.2001 for treatment of the said
inj’uries:,A.b’uit in spite of giving treatment, he succumbed
to the injuries on 10.4.2001. They further claimed that,
“deceased was hale and healthy, doing cooiie work,
“learning ?3.000/- p.111. and contributing the same to the
family. He was the sole bread winner in the family. On
account of his untimely death, the claimants are facing
:7?
./ J5
severe social and economic problems. The Tribunal
taking into consideration all these factors, perusing_Vthe
oral and documentary evidence and other ;’materija1:,,,g1:,_
record, awarded compensation of
interest at 6% p.a. from the
realisation. Both the claimar1tsl’~ar1dVtlilelliiigurer
being satisfied with the llofégmjbensation
awarded by the felt, ri’e=ccssi.tated to file the
instant appeals-. _
3. hejaro..,._th.e illearneld counsel for the
claim’ant_sandthealearnedicounsel for the insurer for a
considerablle
4;. Afte’r-.._.l}:1:earing the learned counsel for the
careful evaluation of the material on
the judgment and award of the
Tribiinal,”vvhat emerges is that, there is no dispute
regarding the occurrence of the accident, the negligence
lllofllthe driver of the offending vehicle and the resultant
V Mdeath of the deceased. Further, there is also no dispute
regarding the age and occupation of the deceased. The
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the
A ,,,,,, ,,…_~–»«-/”””
Z We
deceased at 332.400/– pm. and we accept the same. But,
it has erred in deducting 50% towards his personal
expenses out of his monthly income and :.t1l.€
wrong multiplier of 9. Therefore, we hp
towards his personal expensesIfrointtzeé’n1’onthly’incoJne
and arrive at the net income which” comes ‘VVto_?1,l3OO,’_3″2
pm and as the deceased lvvyears, the
appropriate rriultiplyige-.._i..”:’* it 5, as per
Sarla Verma’s.case hence, we re«~
determine4.tlie of dependency
at __l–2fxW5] as against $1,293,600/~
awarded. We enhance the compensation
awarded btr ‘th_Ve’Tr1lounal towards loss of consortium to
against ?5,000/–; 310,000/~ towards loss
.of’._estat”g’/.Vl.as;’against $3,000/– and ?1o,ooo/» towards
transp-ortation of dead body, funeral and obsequies
‘erigpensles as against $3,000/– and $10,000/~ towards
lhrnedlical expenses as against €3,000/«~. In all, the
it “appellants are entitled to total compensation of
?i,36,000/~ as against ?1/18,600/– awarded by the
8
Tribunal. The breakup of the compensation is as
follows 2m
1. Towards loss of dependency .
2. Towards medieai expenses
3. Towards loss of consortium A’;
4. Towards loss of estate ‘ V _V T
5. Towards transportation of-dea.d”b_ody’, ~v..i?..l..v’i’J,O00/–
funeral and obsequies e.xpense_$w.vVp
i”1,36,000/~
Total
The is by a sum of
%12,éo0,e’-i.
lforvv reasons, the appea1mi\/[FA
Viiled___ioy,the insurer is allowed in part and
T jtiie appea:!MFA 5466/2006 filed by the Claimants is
The impugned judgment and award of the
Trilbtinaelhdated 22.11.2005 passed in MVC NO.71/2002
x.isi””~«_.rnodified. The claimants are entitled to the
leompensation of ?l,36,000/« with interest at 6% pa.
from the date of the petition till realisation as against
?l,48,60O/«M.
The insurer is hereby directed to deposit the
remaining compensation with interest at 6% vp;’a_:.uVfrorn
the date of petition till the date of
period of four weeks from the date of recciptiof of.
this judgment and award.
In View of reduction in-._ comp=ensat.i_on..3 the”
apportionment and the of dud-islo._ursement of
compensation made” A ’17rit3;ii,n’a*1Vi[v”gets_ proportionately
reduced. ”
The if the insurer shall
betransnufiedtotheffidbunalfinthuddr
is d–ire’cgte-d.”‘to44draw the award, accordingly.
…..
JUDGE
Sd/~
JUDGE
rs