xi E9 'A IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BEN<'§H. AT DIIARWAD DATED THIS THE 25I'H DAY OF AUGUST 2909'. ' PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE}.'N.1'}<.U;MAR"' 1:". AN'D . THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BA.IS-]u5EE3N1VASE;' GOWDA Misceikaneous FirSt"AOpee1E 2003 Between: SMT SUBHADRA. ..PAT'II}vv M AGE: 48 YEARS; 'OCCC: AI§§3OU.S'E:'_IIOLD"IIVORK, R /O RANUMIANAGAR, 'BELG:AL_J''N! ; I . . APPELLANT (By Sri. LOKESHI«--MP.LAK/VALILE}. An 1. dz '_ }flANAG'Iv]I\§G-_DIRECTOR Iv:/S.I~IJIJA.fI*A'N.AND ROAD LINES NO.3,*ENKAyI COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI " L DIST':«-.DH_'ARWAD UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD . % ..THRO.E}GH ITS DIVL OFFICE, MARUTHI GALLI * _BE I...--G.AU1\/I, BY ITS MANAGER 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSTRC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SI-IANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE 560027 .V1+jVRssi9oxxIo'E:m's f (By Sri HANUMANTHA REDDY sAHUO:<;AF:;iADvoicATE'[j?.O'R:O R-1 AND SR1 A.M.\/ENKATESH, ADVOCA_TE--t_FOR " This miscellaneous first appeé1~l:.Vi;~3. filed AU."/A A Act against the judgment and awar_d'd.t_.28.02.2OQ3 passed in MVC No.916/2001 on the fi1e._Aor the Ciyil Judiigeii (Sr.Dr1.) 85 AMACT, Belgaum, part1y""ai1OW.i}ng' ;th'ef'c1aim petition for compensation and etc. V i This appeal cc;'rriing' onigfor h'eafing:.thi.$.f.day, N.Kuma,r J., delivered the fo11owin__g:'I[_,5;. " _: . ....
This “seeking enhancement of
compensation son in a motor vehicle
the of convenience, the parties are
refe’r,red.t”o–.asgthey. referred to in the ciairn petition.
S’m_tu.’;_Si.1bhadra Parasharam Patii is the mother of
‘:P.a19a~sharam Patii who died in a motor Vehicle accident.
it aged about 28 years on the date of his death. On
11.03.2001 deceased Gadigeyya Shiddayya Mathapati:’wifas
driving KSRTC bus bearing No. KA«22F/767
towards Dharwad. The deceased Datta. it
a passenger in that bus. When he came Eishgmi;
at Unakal, a truck bearing No.KA;2.$’;’..A–3009_ driirenu”ini”’a’rash 00 0
and negligent manner by it–s__driV.er’ opposite
direction and dashed against accident,
Datta Parasharam and died at
the spot. He V.-person prior to the
accident. shop. He was
earning Rs.6,V000’/-0 the claimant preferred a
claim petition /– as compensation. After
service _of n”oticie~,.p_ the respondents entered appearance.
Stateinaent piofiifolojections are filed contesting the claim.
V’VV..i9lo’v:fever, “‘<«the..__"accident was not disputed as well as the
coverage to the truck. In fact the legal
of the driver of the KSRTC bus and the
cor-Jud'u"c'tor who was injured in the accident have also
It/…
preferred claim petitions. All these cases were
together. The Tribunal has framed three issuesflii
has been examined as PW–1. They l’j;a\fe’pr’oduced’:vthiirteielii
documents which are at exhibits–Pl to
respondents no oral evidence wasvTii::adduced,_i’ by
consent of parties, insuranc”e.__policyiwapsiipirnarkediias’iexhibit–
R1. The Tribunal on consideration’oiffioraj:’a;rrd’_’..docurnentaIy
evidence on record on account of
the rash and and claimant has
established to the income of
the deceased,iiiit.VV_heldi no convincing evidence to
show that working as a T.\/. repairer and
was “business and earning Rs.6,000/– p.m.
T hereforergitpiit’oio3«::_tl1ie-income as Rs.70/– per day deducted SO
cent to—wa:_’ds~vhis personal expenses, took the age of the
T as_.thei”criteria for applying the multiplier, applying 12
i_the”‘._in1’t’1ltip1ier and awarded a sum of Rs.1,4-4,000/-
iii’i”‘:__toward’s”loss of dependency. To that it added Rs.5,000/-
it/T
towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/– towards lossptpoft
and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation and
conveyance, in all a sum of Rs,’1”,S’550QQ/–.;<
-compensation. Aggrieved by the said award,
in appeal.
3. Learned counsel the
impugned judgment avirard deceased was
working as T.\/fl labour. Merely
because no showthe income of
Rs.6,000/–, justified in taking the
income of /– per day as the accident
Therefore, he seeks for
enhancement.o£.cofi:-p–ensation.
:4_ Per “contra learned counsel for the respondents
the impugned award.
5. From the aforesaid material it is c1earW._that-aidtheV.
deceased was aged 28 years, he was not marriedfliie. V’
behind him the claimant mother who <:reii"egeei abo-ut:d4»8_Vyearsjx
Though she deposed that he was working
earning Rs.6,y0O0/– p.rn., no materia.l:VV:'V.ras placveideein to
substantiate the said not
justified in taking the In respect of
unskilled labourers" is taken as
Rs.3,000/- per vlcircilrnstances, it will be
appropriate _theVV'deceased at Rs.3,000/–
p.rn. after towards his personal
expenses agpplyinéi of 13, keeping in mind the
agé._ofif'thVe' diéwyears and thus the claimant would
be enti-tiied /– as compensation under the head
i";oiV°Vi1oss of deperideiiicy. We award Rs. 10,000/– towards loss of
Rs._.10,'GCO/– towards loss of love and affection to the
Rs.10,000/– for obsequies and transportation of
Needy. Thus the claimant is in all entitled to
L/.
Rs.2,64,000/–. To that extent the appeal succeeds. Henceltsye
pass the following order: l
(i) The appeal is allowed in part,m _
(ii) The claimants would be entitled £0 li?s;’l_:,:09;lO’GQ’7′?1+_:l
as additional compensation in addi’ti=or1{f:o”what 2 i’
has been awarded by th_e_;l’ribu_nal.hl The additional
compensation shall per cent per
annum fF’.’~m’1_ the”date: ollflltill the date of
payrncrili’. 7, ,. ‘
(iii) 1=._amel_s’ “toV_..beaLt thei*r_’voWn- costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sol/~
JUDGE