1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30"" DAY OF NOVEMBER,
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PA-TEL. 1.;
AND
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE.LI;'.S.KEMPA:.\fNA"
1VI.F.A.NO. 12625'/.2006" {Mm
BETWEEN: h A
I. SMTK HEMAVATHI .
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5 '
_t\.}
KAVYA
AGED _ --
3. MI1\TQR'NAVY_A V. A
AGED ABOU'1'.'16A.Y'E.ARS
4. NI"I{'I~IVI.I,_
A AGED ABOUT IZIYEARS
IS THE WIFE AND
APPELLAN'_f--__NOs. 2 TO 4 ARE CHILDREN
OF' LA'1'E_I.< Ag.-IHOK AND 2 TO 4 ARE
REPRES~ENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
' AND MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1
GIRIJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
W/O. SHIVARAYAPPA
6. SHIVARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
S/O. LATE MARIYAPPA
2
ALL ARE R/O. NO. 199, 1*" FLOOR
LINK ROAD, SESI-IADRIPURAM
BANGALORE -20 APPELLANTS
{BY SRLMAHESH KIRAN SI"-IE1 III --ADV.)
AND:
1. K P RAMESHA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O. KP. NAIDU
R/O. 16TH PARVATHI NILAyA._%
V CROSS, AV. NAGAR _ ' _
GAYATHRI EXTENSION, _
RAMAMOORTHY NA*r.AR.'POST ~
BANGALORE. - s '
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCEECO. I;TD.';
EXTENSION I ._
SAGAR .A'LTfI'(;II_\/[I_3BILI:',S_;39,{'z;j I .
BANNERGIIATTA
.
RE.PR-E’s EN’ By –BRANCH MANAGER
3. JOHNLOBO” _ . _
AGED ABOUT:54″*{EARs
.. /O; SEBASTIAN LOBO
‘- ININDER ROAD;”‘GANGOLI,I VILLAGE
A _VKIINDAI3’URA TALUK
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
‘ KUNDARURA BRANCH, MAIN ROAD
‘KUNDAPURA REPRESENTED BY
ITS BRANCH MANAGER …REsPONDENTs
‘~1Sf”IEYLSRI.s.V.HEGDE MULKIIAND — ADV. FOR R4.
_ ‘SRI.C.M.POONACHA FOR M/S. LEX PLEXUS FOR R-2,
R-3 SERVED, NOTICE TO R-I DISPENSED WITH
,,..v/O DATED 03.08.09)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
22.08.2006 PASSED IN MVC NO.222/2003 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN.) & MEMBER ADDL. MACT.
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY OWING- THE CLAIM PETITION
3
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
THIS DAY, 1\T.K.PAT1L J.. DELIVERED THE FOLLQW_lN§}; 2 K
J UD GMENT
This appeal by the ‘arise
impugned judgment and award
No.222/2003 passed by the-ficivii ju-dgei(sft.dn.) &
Member, Addl. MACT;
2. The T ribunalipbyiits.”V__impi”igne:dVfludgment and
award of 18,000/- with interest
at 6% from the petition till realisation as
against thelllclainiwof tliellclaimants for ?2,50,30,000/- on
C V. “‘acc”O1int”cf the deathwof the deceased late Sri.K.Ashok in
‘the;-roadftlrlaiffic.?accident.. The claimants claiming that
the”‘qua_§1tur;1Aof compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
JtoWards~–loss of dependency and conventional heads is
E.-i’nade’t:;uate, have presented this appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are zw
Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants 2, 3 and 4» are
._,………..w«»m»- -W’?
the minor children % claimants 5 and 6 are the
4
parents of the deceased. They filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation on
account of the death of late Sri.K.Ashok contending
that, on 9.2.2003 at about 3.30 p.m. when _
was proceeding from Murudeshwara towa’1’*dvs ‘:Banga1orel ‘» it
on NH. 17 in a Maruthi omni car’».bearing
MB 1233, due to the rash”aI:d_ negligent drivir1g,, vofl the
said car by its driver, ‘Nlaravanthgvl? village,
Kundapura Taluk, it on coming lorry
bearing Reg.No._KA–2O588’3 the said impact,
the d,_ecease’cl7.”–sustained’ -grievous injuries and
succumbed’ to the the spot. It is the further
case5;oil”v the claiinan_ts.that the deceased was aged about
‘3Iear,s,’~a’.contractor taking contract works from BSNL
andothlerl-‘V-Celntral Govt. organizations, getting income of
more t;han.%4,00,000/- p.a. after paying income tax and
A [fspending towards other incidental expenses. He was the
sole bread winner in the family. Due to his untimely
death, the claimants have suffered socially and
economically severely. The first claimant, being the
wife, has lost her h at the young age. claimants
..,’,,,,_…,»w–«-=-“”
F
6
the income tax. and also the rebate the deceased has got
for having made investments from out of his total
income. Further, the Tribunal has also not aVVaI'(i.€Vtj_:jL1_VSt
and reasonable compensation towards the _
heads and therefore, he submits that V
award is liable to be modified 3
compensation.
6. As against this. th_€..l:Vllearn_»ed ‘Counsel? for the
insurer, interalia, coriten.de,d*},Vandsubstantiated the
judgment”l’an,d;’.”Tribunal stating that, the
Tribur1al.after of the oral and documentary
evidence and,_:oth.erAmateria1 on file has awarded just
°*a.nd’~– ‘ ireasonablefl ddddd H compensation and therefore.
I -interVfere’1″i.ee by_t~his Court is not called for.
A 7.v_.Aftve1’Aearefu1 consideration of the submission of
ll”-..VVV”‘theLlearned counsel on both sides and after perusal of
judgment and award of the Tribunal, the point that
l -arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
“Whether the quantum of Compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?”
8. The occurrence of the accident and the
resultant death of the deceased are not in
Further, the age and occupation of the .
also not in dispute. The deceasedhad f_ile’d’.taxu T”
returns for the assessment yearsl’-:20Q’0–:{)l l’t.o”th’e
13,49,743/– p.a. for 2oo1–ol2″—:3,1e;e0%1riv/-‘i§l;é;,prand3 for = ”
200203 33,86,803/~p.a. a:r1.dVV:”lnc’on1ehltaxg has been
deducted and the netarrived at. The
average annual’ iI_1co:_r’1’1eV”c§or1:41lesVi”–,to V’ ‘<f3;50,861/~. The
insurerhas'=e§;amiif1Ved._lDW2~Ensurance officer. one Vijay
kumar, 'Who has this aspect. However, the
Tribunal has erred' in"-deducting $60,000/–, which is the
'lV."rebat.e 5=th.e"l'..deceasedAv has received for having made
investm.er1ts,lfafrom out of the average income of
and thereby arrived at the income of
p.a. and further deducted one-third
alolwards his personal expenses and adopted the
multiplier of 13 and calculated the compensation
towards loss of dependency at ?26,00.000/–_. which is
on the lower side. 1-lence, we 1'e–dete1'1r;i:1e the
/
/
//
_. ……. ,,._:;-3
8
compensation towards loss of dependency by taking the
annual income of the deceased at ?3.50,86l/–,
deducting one–fourth towards his personal expenses
[‘<'3,50,861/– minus ?87.715/– 2 %2,e3,14s,<ds)~.drc'e_;;nfjw..
having regard to the age of the deceased
as per the Apex court dE'CiSi0I1V=.lI1 S.ar1a':cVerrna's.'"V-case f
(2009 ACJ 1298), we aclopt7th__e mttltiplierparriife
at ?'36,84,044/– (?2,s3,146/{ding 14) dtoviiardspvfiloss of
dependency.
Further, we awa1’d..:?lVO,g(}Q(l.f/-v_- loss of
consortium; loss of estate and
?°2O,0OO/4’cfltowardsfd of love and affection and
A toward.sv___transportation of dead body, funeral
._0bvseqcuies.__ expenses thereby awarding totally
the conventional heads.
the appellants are entitled to total
if lmconiipenvsdation of ?37,34,044/~ as against ?26,18,000/–
‘ awarded by the Tribunal. The break up is as follows :-
1. Loss of dependency $36,811,044/-
2.ToWards Loss of consortium ? 10,000/–
3.Towards Loss of estate ? 10,000’/”‘
4.Towards Loss of love and affection ?° ~
5. Towards transportation of dead ? T’
Body, funeral and obsequies * A
Expenses _ “,«. ”
.. g;
,’.E.
Total _ ?37′,–3rl,’G44)f§”‘~ A
The enhanced . cornpepiisatoion ‘ A ‘ cornes to
?1 1,165,044/~ which carries p.a. from the
date ofthe ir’eal’i~sation .
51-0,’ Ha’wL.ng”r’ega’rdwto the facts and circumstances
ffof as above, the appeal is allowed in
apart. and award of the Tribunal in MVC
_ No.2′;?,2/_’2O-(ABAdt.22.8.2OO6 is modified. The appellants
Dherepin are entitled the compensation of ?1l_.l6,044/~
with ‘interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till
~ “realisation, in addition to the compensation awarded by
if the Tribunal. .
it}
The second respondent –insurance company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation within 4 weeks
from the date of receipt of the certified copyvpofhthis
judgment and award.
From out of the enhanced compensatio.n:,«_ the
apportionment to the appellants is as.1’loiilo*12\fsA.jé’*- 4′ V
1)
A chvildlrenl of
?5,00.000/– with prope.1_jtionat,_e’ inter;ev’sft{.:sl:y1V§’;l1li he
invested in the name appellant:vll\lo.fi1wwife of
deceased in any “natiyohalisedy/scihedule bank for a
periods. of fiveiyearslplrenetyalble by another five years
With’ l.iberty the interest accrued on it
_ .periodicaily:
..’A:?8O.O’0O/M each with proportionate interest shall
in the names of appellants 2 to 4~
deceased in any
to nationalised/scheduled bank for five years,
-Alrenewable for another five years with liberty to
them to Withdraw interest accrued on it
periodically for their Welfare; and ‘<'20,000/~ each
/
ffirm
,4"
iii]
1]
with proportionate interest shall be releasfedo in
favour of appellants 2 to 4.
?1,00,000 each with proportionate tlier b
names of appellants 5 anc1;:6–pa:fents’:
shall be invested in,*a.ny nationaliaed/,sehe§;i1ile
bank for a period of ‘.,Vlrev:r1eV’itable by
another three Egeétrs 1’ to “them to
withdraw the “periodically;
The shall
be to appellants 1,5
and_’6 deposit by the insurer.
Gffieev to thee’ award accordingly.
Sd/f-3
IiidgE
Sdffl
Im1<i5