IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26" DAY OF APRIL, 2009
PRESENT:
THE HQN'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUM3R{w, ETE;*V
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 3.s,_§ACHfiEPURE=f,i _
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL Ne;;oea4 g§'goo5:{My}_*.
BETWEEN:
S.Sumitra, 5. ,
W/0. Late T.N.Sriniva3ah, 5
Aged about 67 years, " *'
R/o. No.40, 2" cross,
Govinayakanahalii,_ V .
Kumaraswamy Laybfit, ", i=' "*AE,W-Wf
Near state Eank cf India;_ V
Bangaloréwia,' -:Vfly W_Fm,; ... APPELLANT/s
{By Sri. Vishwanath s shettar, Adv.)
TheVEivisiQfialHManager,
B .M*.,T';=C. Di;',I,
Shanthinagarg
~K.H.a¢ad;_ '
~7§y.$anga1o:a52?. ... RESPONDENTXS
~._"f޴ MES. Hegde Associates, Adv.]
~i*~1»~k
This MFA is filed u/Sec. l?3{1) of MV Act
A "égainst the Judgment and Award dated 63.06.2005
passed in MVC No.4033fO3 on the file of the VI Add.
SCJ" & Member, MACT, Bangalore, SCCB No.2, partly
R//,M
2 MFA No.1G844/05
allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing on I.A}; this
day Kumax J., delivered the following: 'V '" '
JUDGEMENT
By consent of both side5,the:appeai is taken up
for final hearing.
2. The claimantn has ~ptefer;ed athie, appeal,
seeking enhancement of eompeneation for the death of
her husband–Sri.T,N.Srinivasan;,
3. .The.1§artiee ‘are referred to as they” were
referredj in ‘the aoriginai. proceedings, for the
purpose of convenien¢e.:J
4,’~_ On i3;07.2003 at about 5.50 p.m., when
tenSri,T1fi.§fiiniyasanmeas walking on the footwpath side
defsg ftixioad near Ishwara Bar and Restaurant, the
V’=» ems egg bearing reg. No.KA-01-?-2414 came in a rash
i*« and negligent manner and hit him. Due to the
“‘,iepact; he sustained grievous injuries in the said
VVMiaceident and later succumbed to the injuries. He
u”was a retired K.E.B. Engineer and was drawingo a
pension of Rs.4,562–00 p.m. on the date of his
11/”
6 MFA Ne.10844/05
apportioned the negligence to the accident at 90% to
the driver of the bus and 10% to the deceasedgn it
took note of salary of the deceased at Reiéffidfiefldx
p.m., applied the multiplier “T” and awarded a sum _ ”
of Rs.2,52,000-OO under the
dependency after deducting 1/3 tewards the gergéeai”
expenees of the deceased, taj’sum” Of “Rexifi;50d~O0
awarded under the head Qf loaehofdloye and affection
and consortium, another $ee7dt;Redi3e§QO~00 towards
the funeral a?deQ0bseQhi?§: 8%§§9§es;iiand. a sum of
Rs.5,000~OO ;tewerdei the *:;a¢5§§;fie{:on earges. A
sum of _.–Rs ‘–:::tideducted towards 10%
negligence attribe§@d°toathe deceased and thus in
all the Tribunai’ aeardediia sum of Rs.2,49,300wOO
_with ¢ihterest'”atVd7%’ p.a. frome the date of the
uflpetitien tili the date of payment. Aggrieved by the
said*hward} the elaimant preferred this appeal.
8;” haihe learned counsel for the appellant
=e’aubmite that no compensation is awarded under the
.head less to the estate and the Tribunal erred in
xattributing 13% of negligence to the deceased while
iuealking on the foot~path.
he/”‘
5 MFA No.10844/05
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent/Corporation supported the impugned Award
and also submitted that the Tribunal committed a
serious error in not deducting 50% of the xincone
towards the personal expenses of the deceased; ;lI*Li.
10. From the aforesaid materiel, indie gieard
that deceased Sri. T.N.Sr:i.r1ivaean
at the time of the accident. V”~Hé Vwasf a _#?£iredhi
K.E.B. Engineer and was idrawing2″a:deension of
Rs.4,562–GG p.m. as on the date 9% the accident. He
succumbed to theV’injurieV:is” accident.
Though justified in hoiding
that the. deceased; wean also contributed to the
accident and therefore eeportioned 10% negligence to
‘”the deceesed and eiso in not awarding Rs.10,000~0O
itowards*ioss to the estate, the Award de not call
for interference because, in the first place, the
‘Tribune; has taken the entire income of the deceased
d”‘at”Rs-4,5GG~G0 p.m. for the purpose of calculating
hthe loss ef dependency. when the claimant and her
» husband i.e., the deceased are only two persons,
3″normally 50% has to be deducted towards the personal
expenses, which the Tribunal has not done. The
X
*1/””‘
6 MFA No.1084é/OS
respondent/Corporation has net preferred any appeal
in this regard. Under the circumstances, it is juet
and preper to reject the appeal. We do not see_any
merit in this appeal. Accordingly, we peesfl fine
following:
ORDER»w.
The appeal is d:smisséd:_
‘Ksm*_”