IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K...,l§:A7lfIlA.g::' l " D
AND
DATED THIS THE 20'?" DAY OF OCTOBER. 2ClC*9.
THE HONBLE MR..»e'JUSTlDCE"N. A1»'m&$It1)_A
M.F.A.N0.3o0émF 2Qo6t{--}ziV)lD
BETWEEN:
1.
. . _ Mr. alviailnoj,
Smt. Sic1t1a.gangétrri'rr1e1.,
W/0. late };?.'Ven1§atesh,
Age§1"aboti~t 'y-:-:_'_c1r__s.~~._ V
/.0'. Sri.'VG-.Ve;1k2Ltesh', '
Aged about year_é;'.~» ,
S/0. Sr1;..(}.Ven:l<atesh,
D ?t.AAgedA.ab0utV'"E1/E years.
3 . lrA:5§é11:§n+:s 2 and 3 are
V"Si12,ee~rnVi'nor, represented by their
Na-.::a1 Guardian mother i.e. Appellant No.1
~ ere residing at
"No.19, lMa1n. 11 Cross,
Kamalanagar.
Bangalore -- 560 079.
(By Sri.B.KeshaVa Murthy, Advocate]
L
9'
f
I,
1/
. . .Appel1ants
1. Suit. Lalitha,
W/o. M.Punya,
No.86, 15"' H Main,
J. C.Nagar, Kurubarahalli,
Bangalore -- 560 086.
2. New India Assurance Co. I§td.7,._ T
No.339, 1 Floor, Nearuilth Cross, V
Sampige Road, Malleshwarain, ' '-
Bangalore -- 560 003. b " t_
V _ ';;'.--Respondents
(By Sri.D.S.Sridhar, Advocate for ~--R*2;" ' a _
R1 -- Served and u.n--rep_resented}__ "
.=4a4==1?'=s=:=d1'e'-.;-.._' ' "
This MFA is'tfi1edffU]"S.v'i.7'3,[1} er MV Act against the
judgment :a;9_va1'd"'da'te'd__21 /, 1/2005 passed in MVC
No.86?/2'GO5_v on'fVVthe'».fi}e effthe Addl. Judge, Member,
MACT--V,' Cou.z'ft.,AA'o3°_ 'smau Causes, Metropolitan Area,
Bangalore (SCVCi-1j--.5)',' --~ ._p'art1y allowing the claim petition
for compensation " seeking enhancement of
corr1pensation;~» "
5='I'hist.tMFAdVcon1ing on for hearing this day, N.K.
' delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
A. This appeal by the claimants is directed against
‘tithe; judgment and award dated 21st November 2005,
‘passed in M.V.C.No.86’7/2005, on the file of the Motor
E’
1′
.f
; ——»–~——–mmuaw.t
2′
J
Accident Claims Tribunal –V and Court, of ._ Small
Causes, Bangalore City ( Tribunal’ for short=._,t’)’~..Vvfor
enhancement of compensation on the ground’,
compensation of Rs.4,56,000/-.:awardeéj1.Vin ‘ .
claimants appellants as againstgtheirg
lakhs, is inadequate. _ _ __ V
2. The appellant NoV._,l…i_s” ‘of..the:§deceased,
appellants 2 and 3 and claimants 4
and 5, who arev..par;ents are not before
this Co1n*t.1″p_««..4 ‘ appellants that, the
deceased:_G. aged about 32 years as on
thegdatelof the accident and was the owner cum driver
antoricksh-aw. That on 19th October 2004, at
V when the deceased was coming from
nvatiyleiizplace by riding his motor cycle bearing
Registration No.KA–O2/EL–7898 near Deepak Factory,
Bangalore, a Tata Sumo bearing Registration
__5No.KA–01/N-4942 belonging to first respondent, was
/
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the deceased. As a result of
accident, he fell down and sustained grievous’
and on account of the serious»lA»inj4uriels ‘hex’
succumbed to the same on 20th;°Qc:tober
3. On account of ‘the.V..deatla ‘of, thelhdaeceasedl
View of the grievous injuries_llls11s’tained “i«n__thgei§ accident,
the appellants herein ._t1§.¢i~ p’aVr:ents_of the deceased
(not parties before claim petition
before «.se_el;ing compensation of a sum of
the respondents. The said claim
petition “had Vcorneu for consideration before the
il’Si’v—-November .2005. The Tribunal, after
T relevant material available on tile and
after a_pprl§:c’iation of the oral and documentary evidence,
allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of
‘VRsl.’.-‘1,56,O0O/~ with interest at 6% per annum from the
Mandate of petition till the fate of realization. Being
/
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this
Court, seeking enhancement of compensation, — A.
4. The learned coun~se’1″–«f0r
submitted that, the
arriving at the loss of depe-ntiencyV., bimonthly’
income of the deceased — even ‘though the
deceased was owner of the
autorickshaw ‘ “end earning. . _…h&1f1dSOII1€ income.
Therefo’1*c.,,:’i?1e”:”s}:s;1’bn1i.tted’that} having regard to this
aspect, ll ‘trea-syoieiable income of the deceased
maybe taker; fQlT at the loss of dependency.
As’ Aiagainst this, the learned counsel for the
‘Insuirance.:°Company, inter alia. contended and
that the judgment and award passed by
the Tfiibunal is just and reasonable and does not call
interference. However, he fairly submitted that,
I
2′
__nm¢_»_MWm_”HW,’,__M,mm.a».
I
E
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the monthly income of the deceased taken
Tribunal is slightly inadequate and that’;
income may be taken for arrivingat the veoIi1pe’ns:atioVnl’
payable towards loss of dependency, ”
6. After careful consideration of the v.su«b1’ni.ssion of’
the learned counselzior the—parties, after…eValuation of
the original records after perusal of
the impugned passed by the
‘I’ribur1a1,.. lseerimthat, the Tribunal has
committed the monthly income of the
deceasediat”RsV.’3,(J–(l0;l”;. It is not in dispute that, the
de_cea’sedVl.was a ‘driver cum owner of two Autorickshaws
‘ a sum of Rs.6,200/- per month apart
Qtherincome. However, having regard to the fact
A that vthe accident occurred during 2004, we are of the
View that, it would be just and reasonable to take the
fffionthly income of thefieased at Rs.4,000/–. There
___w__m_W’_,_,,,,,,,,.,.».-
E’
are three dependents. Therefore, it would be reasonable
to deduct 1/3?” towards the personal expense-s:’0:f’~~the
deceased. Since he was aged about 32 years
date of the accident and the ~~a»ppro;p.riate.–VIv
applicable is ‘I6′. According1y,7..A_Atai{ingthe
income of the deceased at’–‘ -3: after” V
deducting 1/3rd), adopting.” r.ud»u_1tip1ieI*’;ArWe award a
sum of Rs.5, 12,064/Q [1.,e.Rs;:2gtee’7}*:p» 12 x 16) towards
loss of depeiidjeiicylasgt — awarded
by the 9
it ._ So. amount awarded under the
conventional’ heads isconcerned, the same is just and
V’ _ p’ro’pe_r~..a:ad doeshot call for interference.
* .the light of the facts and circumstances of
caserfthe appeal filed by appellants is ailowed in
by ‘»The impugned judgment and award passed by the
db ‘Fribuna1 dated 2194 November 2005 in
,-
7,]
G?”x*#
‘V ” a’25Var{1,_
M.V.C.No.867 / 2005 only in so far as loss of dependency
is concerned, is hereby modified, by awarding apsum of
Rs.5,12,064/– as against Rs.3,84,000/- award’eVd”‘bjI:.Vthe
Tribunal, with interest at 6% per
enhanced sum, from the date ofmpetition of
realization .
Needless to mentiofil»,,VV:.”that :.eorri,pensationV
awarded by the Tribtriial heads remains
undisturbed. _
The secoiasdlpres-pdndent “Insurance Company is
directedllv enhanced compensation of
interest thereon, within four
we¢:1;s,prm}n date receipt of copy of the judgment
3 on deposit of the enhanced sum with
iritere__-st -by the Insurance Company, a sum of
A. Rs.50;*’O0O/~ each shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the
of appellants 2 and 3 in any Nationalized or
“Scheduled Bank, till they attain majority, with