-4 €Ol.3R"i OF KARNAIAKA HIGH COLIUE-3' KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR? OF KARNATAKA HIGH CCU IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7"'nAy or SEPTEMBER, 2969 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mm.JUsTI¢E_K.L,MANiUKATH_ T THE HON'BLE MRs.JUsTIcE:B,E.fiAGAfiATfiNA';: BETWEEN AND 4 ' M.F.A.No;i1§65'oFx2ooé }*w 1 SMT NAGAMMA'wfQ LATE KEMEANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS; " v V 2 sax EAGEAvE$DRA§b/oTEATEWEEMEANNA AGEE=AEQqT~13_YEARs;V 3 _B;NbE"Dfip_LATE"KEMpgNNA :'AGEDgAEofiT 15 YEARS, MINOR ';REPTD;»Ex"HER_NExT FRIEND CUM NATURAL 'GUARDIANgTHE.1" APPELLANT SMT.NAGAMMA A£PELLANTS.1 To 3'EREfR/A C70 CHOWDA RIDDY, DOflflMmflJ£URK¥_H A KoLAR""DIsTRIcT SRI i¥ANNx1jV,"u°»f 1jEsAo:3mE'KEmmmKwnA" ABOU1' ?3xA--KALLAEA MEET ;KANflflflflR3T@ SMfitEfiAM$A 'w;/c' .uTg AGED ABOUT vzammns, _E.syA«xALEAN RMKE 4 Eangawmnx Ham: KAMuUunRA.TQ . . APPELIANTS 'xfiqm M. \>. u\m~2"'wnm.uc «ms aL4"'n.5s*»""<<A»-\fiM\'""%< Mgmmea wwwwmg. Wm" A<s.mem.w¢.m.wmaw% gwww %w.wW§M -W?' fimfifiiwflfiflfifi §"EI€$.l:é%§""'é €.'L€}5;§iE€"E" fiéfimifififiuffififi HEQW fiflgésgfiif WW fifigmfigfigflfi Mgfigfi flaw: '_: " ' ' 3 (By Sri: SUG-UNA R REDDY,ADV. ) AND 1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONWW MUSHEERBAD T " HYDERABAD -_ 5=.-- v.» S. A ...7RESPONDENT=*
(By Sri: D VIJAYA KUMAH}ADv.)a_*
THIS MFA HiLED.VU/sg 173(1) “oFV MV ACT
AGAINST THE *.f_JanGMENT~g*, AND AWARD
DATED:02/02/2006 PASSED _:Nvjmn: NO. 34/2002
ON THE FILE OF THE c:vILjJUDGH'(SR.DN) & JMFC,
& MMBER; AQEL.” MAST, .GHIcHHALLApUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE GLA:fi_9HT:T1oN FOR COMPENSATION &
SEEKING ENHANdmGxT_oF=coM£ENSATTQN.
THIS A§§fiAL§CQMffiGgOfi’FGfi §DMESSION THIS
DAY, NAGARATHNA J; DELIYEBEB THE FOLLOWING:
‘JVJUDGE§§i
5 “=Thss§h¢» this fiéEter is posted for
admi’s.=-._s’igorV1V,GA consent of counsel on both
is Sides, ifi is EGASH finally.
appeal is filed by the legal
‘A’-4″_VTep«HeS’erAfiGatives of one Kempanna seeking
of ccmpensation by challenging the
% Gudgment andammrd passed in MVC No.84/2002 by
the M.A.C.’I’. at Cnickballapur.
sf’,
/ x
Efiuzww vx;,,’a,,¢*s<m¢s<m W12 .w.,;~&mummaa~Mmm szuazw-amt wwmwimie w¥"' %""w'*'&E€'R¥"{M%flréWWJP'% Maw" M
mmm W?" éwfimmflfififlfl mm-am mmmw WW" Mewwmsmamm mawmv, mwwm war" mmmm~Mm:–ww<~»
3. The facts of the case in brief are
that on 11.10.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. Kempannag
was crossing the road near Doddapyiagfirky*;0.
gate, when the respondentfcorporation. baa
bearing No.AP 10 Z 9762 was driven in”a rash I
and negligent manner and dashed against ni§;
as a result he sustained griewous ihjtries and
died in the legal
representatives filed eiafim Qetitioh seeking
compensation~on1§ariefi%’headfi1hrwJ
4.After”‘keeeipttfiofelnotice from the
Tribunai, ;’thed1:respondeht appeared and
contested the m3t£é§;k§d0
5;” In orderv to prove their case, the
iciaimants examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to
V P10.fihi1e the respondent let in the evidence
ifpvofi RW1 and got marked Ex.R1. On the basis of
pflthen’S§id evidence, the Tribunal awarded
47;fleofipensation of Rs.3,59,400/– with interest at
h”‘__ “6tm p.a. from the date of petition till
realisation. Not being satisfied with the said
9»
/”235.
WWW W mm.mW.m mmiaw Mimwfig’ we Mmmmnm mm mam” W54 memmm was anew’ W mwamm men mam” ea mmamm HEW new
award, the claimants have preferred this
appeal.
6. We have heard the learned séfiaseifsér
the appellants and the learned counsel £0; the.l*
respondentwcorporation.
7. It is contended ton” be;¢§’1g..,.V,9£3 the
appellants thatfi the pdecga§eqw.gas pan Arrack
vendor and that’he_Qas earning an income of
Rs.500/* per dayg””éut the frihnnal has failed
to appreciaaggthersaidlguidence and instead
toofi the inccpe of the égéeased at Rs.80/* per
day} which is verf much on the lower side and
hence the afiard has to be enhanced on the head
of loss of dependency as well as on the other
H8?E_@Per contra, counsel for the
Corporation submits that in the instant case,
iv, multiplier applied was 17, whereas as per the
ailatest decision of the Apex Court, multiplier
“of 16 has to be applied and that the Tribunal
was justified in taking Rs.80/- per day as the
income of the deceased and hence the Judgment
£
/I/J;
and award does not call for any interference
in this appeal.
9. Having heard the counsel 9:’ bothfflnfl
sides, the only point that _arises “in cthisr
appeal, is whether the appellantsӤreVentitledp7h
to additional compensationE*p
10. From the material on_recordsr it is
evident that though the appellants contended
that the deceased sum of
Rs.500/– per»dap:as*anrhrrachhnendor, in the
absence cor Vtherel being _g§§ corroborative
evidence, with ‘.i~ejg.;”rg:1″‘lV1;_6′.. the same, we are of
>2HHC*IIuW$fl’?§ mwwm. W3″ mmmwmmmm WWW eiwwwm mm” mw.wm§mm i%W;M=”a amp $.;,W WWN$:{§”2:@M%Z% §~%§%,?§>§*~§ mfiwafimm Wfififi WW}?
the viewfi considering the fact that the
_paccident*occurred in the year 2002, a sum of
hKRS%333a¢ffLh3$ to be assessed as the notional
income of the deceased instead of Rs.2,400/–
.Per lmonthfi as assessed by the Tribunal.
.{Vlpurtherf the deceased was aged 34 years and in
‘V, .v1eyl¢£ the latest decision of the Apex Court
‘«ifi” SARLA VERMA’s case, the appropriate
multiplier of 16 would have to be applied and
after deducting’ 1/4 of ‘the monthly income