IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGEXLORE
DATED 'I'H¥S THE '?TH DAY OF AU{}US'f',
PR ESENT
THE HQNBLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA-.CPIE,Li;ijR %
AND"
THE 1-mwam MR. JUSTICE§i.__$1? EENiVASE ::?;G€¢ii~fiA'
MISCELLANEOUS FIRSTEAPPEAVL 'NO.7.9§ '" '
BETWEEN :
1. 31111:. M. B. Na1ina ' __ -
Aged a¥3o1;11';_37 years '
we was K: %
2. " V'
ged é%}_Q1it';$,6 'y;far§ . _'
0' Lathe Murthy
3. "
; ' Aged abautll years
~ 9110 Late Murthy
1:103. 2 and 3 are
' Rfqamsented by their
Mcthafaizé Natural Guaxtiian
Sr,1i.L'i'y'I; B. Nalina, 1*' apfxllant
residing at N'0.355[ 16
" }F_*'3~Cmss, Lakshmipura
Gfivigumm Extension
1. Ba{1ga1ore----56{} 019 APiF'ELLA?§'FS
(83; Sri. R. Krishna Raddy, Advocate)
'\'\§'m:;, ' I?
ix.)
AND:
v Sri. Venkatash Naidu, Major
S/o Sri. Ranumantha Naidu
Residing at No.31, Vidyapeeia
Banashankari I Stage
Ba:1ga1o1"e--56O 050 =
The New india Assurance
Cempany Limited
No.41/2A, Nithyanandanagar _
Mysore Roaei, Nayandahalli , "_
Baflgalore ' f
Rcgaresented by Bréiicli Maj1aiger' I
Sn". 8. J. 1?r;L.1;ash:,"Majo§ " _
S[oSn'.;Lii1:fi3EJ'a;'éi_ah
Residjjzsgat 1'9_1a;_hax'¢er;'R.0afi V
13¢;}.ui., Naggman.ga3a'.'Tamk; '
Max;dya.VAD"ist:§c:t , "
Lt?,d.,
PQB. Rpad
Mandya Town, Kvlanéya District
_RepIfi'Sent:2d_'::_y its Bianch Manager
%%%%% --« =
Tfigaé about '?(} years
TS','--.(»>'1§itf; Jaware Gowda
¢§<"esid;ing' No.355/ 16
1" Lakshmipura
Gsgwipaaiam. Extension
Ba1:ggaiore--560 019 RES?ONDEN'§'S
{By Sri. R. Rajagopalan, Advocattz for Respondent no.2}
. V’ ~{.E§ri. ‘1’.P’. Rajendfa Kumar Sungal fer Regponcient no.3)
(Re$p<::n.de;:1ts 1103.4 and 5 are served}
7 { Respondent no. 1 service hald sufficiant)
wfrkfr
This MFA is filed under section 173(1) Act
against the éudgmcnt and Award dated 28.'7.2{)(_)i3. Vpasgcéz in
me No. 2186/2003 on the file of XIX A«3.d1.'*r–,_;and
Member MACT, Metxopolitan Area, Bangaioye V
partly allowing the claim pctitiqp for :c0'mpt;t1sati'– An __a:'1:3»
seeking enhancement of cc3mpct;.'sati{)nz «_
This MFA comm' g on for t}1}£ s_–.c1ay, 2
CHELLUR J. delivered. thc.i'o1l9wi11g:._ ' V 1 % _
'
T his appeal and Award in
MVC No.21a6j;;200:§::' 'at Bangalore.
2., to the filing of the
pzcssm: .
of one deccaseé K. Narasimha
5:. 3 am the children of dccttased
Deceased Narasimha Murthy was aged
A at the time of the accident. He was Working
2 a:;:S VV’;§’fi:;.,io1′”:'”f3:1ginccr at KPTCL zhrawiug a salaxy cf
‘u¥<?s.1£*5,.f}6'(§/~ at the me cf his death, According to me
AA ; cfippéfisants he had another 15 years of scrvicc and was the
VV "'ucly bread earner of the: famiiy.
611 17.2.2093 the deccasezi was travcliing in 3 Toyota
Quaiis bearing I2c.KA~OS~MA~2543 from Knnigal ta
Bangalore 013: N21-i. 48. The said Qua-111$ driven by . ité '«:3._1*ivc:r
met with an accident as it cofiided with anQfl:;c:"'A §':~'?N."f
5526 at Majjige Lakkammana;aa.}yia.__ln t_':1é:"'sai£_:i ,éi€:citi¢3nt, I:'1c_
died at the spot éue to fatal inj§i;i€:$g;" T
a claim petition was
Rs.25,0(},00O/~ for the éeceased
Narasimha M1.1rthy.V _A AL 2 A H
3. T136 matter i.;*;Spondents who are
the “f}1%%v”:L£%?0′–~vé$hjc1es involved’ in the
of the entire material
111ti§;3;;3.xtV:zai§;*V negligence against thf: driver of
tl:e.V’i’oyc;§fia Aée-t1€:«1″‘..<iix*e:cteci the insumd and the insumr
"!<:;'p;€i3=' tin; comfjéhfiéttion awarded. We need not make
V as the opini-311 0f the Tribunal has reached
" as actionable negligencfz of the driver of the
oflisjfiing Velxiclc.
3″”
:3, Then coming ta the: quesfimn of quantum of
compensation, the 15* appellazit was examined as raw; arm
thrcaugh her $c:vem1 dccuments were market?” So far as
dependency anti the relationship bctween the dc(;géa$é:i_ and
the appellant — Ex.P–? ratien care’: was pmd_rg4éé{§–§
fit) serious dispute regarding the same.
Manager Of BESCOM, was
nature: of work, salary detaii3; ‘
Narasimha Murthy at KP’rc L;L».:’,:Ae.¢oréii1;§ £6 salafy
that was paid to deélgézscd per Ex.P–9
was in the month of
6. as V. Vdeccascd as Junior
Ez1gi11eei5<'Vat":::¥{.é"I;C':L goint of time there. is no
dislfsiété " grass and net as disclesed
in éefious éispute. The appellants
hays quL2%'::-.tion¢(i._ of compensation awarded by
'If1;é.b;malAA:§tv§?$.'«11,96,{}{){)i~ towards loss of dependency
' other ccmventienal amounts 9f Rs.,20,00{}/-
" .' ¢0ht5n<ii:j2§1'ti1at it is inadequate and on the lower side when
is the age and salaxy of the deceased at the
" » n 'T xtlevént point of time.
?. Learned c@uns:::}. fer tha appeilants rsiies on the
Iatfist Judgment ef the Apex Ciourt in the case sf SMT,
SARLA VERMA we omees Versus DELH§ TR.a”1=asI>0m*
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in
e??(s.c.).
8. So far as the ratio i:’iL::W1i, in
regaxéing the multiplier that and:iS0bvVa}$V0
with regard to the assessreezifof on
age of the deceased” xyith ;1efe«:ee1;ee’~ if; ‘pms;peets in his
occupying a better Ldepends upon, the
number of éepartment, is
mdieetee’; 1 7. V. ‘
TV¥;e.’vVh§1;re% g0: n”e.,.I’h1e-ugh the sajé Judgment. Their
Loxtislgifis; after referring to several
..,E’aégmee17£s,=.,vef’the Court on the quesfion of multiplier
. «V has’ to f5e’««vad0§ted, deduction towards iaersonal
” __e.e3<peV:;siié311aeV ef the deceased, assessment of Ease of
A »..depend.e;;ej:, assessment of eempensation under
eeixventional heads and how to assess when cieeeased is a
x _ éfi;a1*ried employee 01" he has an aveeatien or occupation. with
\v'"'x\
deféznffe iaeeme have maée a scientific analysis anti
"uitimateiy have indicated at yam 21 what shelfld be the
1}. Now coming in the facts of the case,
appamnfly the date of birth of the deceased is 513 the
accident occmred on '?.2.2(}03. He was agcri'a.hdi§t
as on the date: of his death. L
have mtirezd at 58 or 60, af.-3 tI::{: (iécéézscé 'Lag;
QTOHP of 50 years, the sheid
Sarla Verma's case. The Viihekrerife and the
two children who wcéféé time of his cieath,
the dcduc'§£3l0:=r§: §:~f expenses of the
'
}:'2_.1 certificate for the month of
Nov.2(}§)2,_ was Rs.16,{)60/- and the total
df::<iv12.§:ti0¥i R S.2é69/-.As held in the above case,
" A V V'wheiievéA1*.¢fi1e income: of the deceased is in the taxable range,
Julie: féo .bc paid have to be deducted from the salary
A at the rate of Rs.1,00()[ ~pm. From EXP9 we
alsoffxote R3200/~ was paid as professiona} tax and total
r included Rs.35{)/ »= conveyance allowance which Wcmid
have {wan spent by éfsceased for hizcasclf. Thezefere it} the
present case the tstai deductions would be Rs.I,S50/-. Thts
balance Wouid 001113 ta R3. 14,5101». This w91;};t£'4'_:'i3§ the
acme} salary as indicateti in the: Case of Sar}a,_
deceased was 45 years old Rs.4353,' –
salary towards the futme pros@oects. a%3 u§:1_e{}5"—-
years of service at the rats? indicaiegi t1£'1T}f: .éi}:)(§:\?{:
Judgment which ccames to — / 3"' has
:0 be deducted 'toWardV'v,s {he personal
expenses of $16 d<:*cg:_s:«;§§'¢::A:iV. 1393 of dependerzcy
would be .14 has to be applied.
when 4&3 <gO%1v'é11tiona1 amounts, oniy
against normal award of
Rs.%¥'L},fiO0] ~–. $16: apitacllants are tmtitled for
t:n2_1ancéi::-.c:i2t. Qi7c6;a;5£ifisati0n as indicated bei-ow:
-f%:;:€;s;,g.j9:’gigpegifiemsy-‘-~ Rs.12,5’75 x 22 x 14 w Rs.21,12,6(}O/-
V iiassxfgfif 1:9 the Wife: 1{),OO0[-
.’ A “é:Lj;~3jf.;§tc: of the deceased lO,%O[~
‘zyf Zove anci afiecfion as father tau
.A ; L thercixildran 10,000/»
V’ §3T;i1n,é:ra1 and other incidental charges 10,000] «
Rs. 21,52,690]-
ma.
Accmdingiy, the appeal is allowed in
the compensafion by” Rs.9,36,6()G/ –. of
Compensation $13333 Carry i11tcres_t..a1;_50/0 bf
petition till the date of dep0sit:’a]:)y;’_’£h+t::9 flu?’
indie: Assurance (30. So tits
Tribunal aha}: disburse tn; with the
principles laid .T§ 1§I1;as’s case in order to
eusune the Welfare Qf of the deceased
and the Whom Kum. Sanjana
thf: 3″
“£18 is granted eight weeks time to
d€p0sVixt $15 .f:IV}V:i£.f;i_41V7i(}€§d’:.:€;l§L11OtiI1iC.
Sd/-‘
IUDGE
sad-
313983.
sak