IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF AUGUST, 2010".
BEFORE
THE HON'i3LE EVERJUSTICE B.SREEN1\/AS_E.. ._ E
MISCELLANEOUS FERST APPEAL A:O.8:725 OE?
BETWEEN:
3. SMT SUNETHA
W/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA
AGED 33 YEARS
2. TILAK S/ O LATE VENi<ATEGC)'*.1V:Ai:}/.3.' E'
AGED 13 YEARS
'.;J
NAVYA D/O LATE vEjm<.ATES'O'\AkOA§
AGEOSYEARS '
4. K THIMMvAE'G'Ov'vO:A; .
S/O s<R:;;HNEGOwOA.L.S_
AGED 67'Y_E/XRS' ' '*
5. MANJAMMA "
AGED 62 YEARS _.
W/O T<;TH1HMEGO'»~xOA
."'A9PE'Le_AAi5TS 2'"AAnO 3 AAEEMIAAORS
REP'51ESENTED4§;§Y"vT_HEIR MOTHER,
APPELLANTS '1- 5 ARE
RESIOI MG, AT 1 56
g 1*"'svIA1A; ROAD, 6" CROSS
'CH1:<:<ASw_A~Hv LAYOUT
" ,J,P'.£aiAGAR 6"' PHASE
'.K#\..NAKF_lPURA MAIN ROAD
. SANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS
E .. _(_Es__~? SR}: GIRIMALLAIAH, AOVOCATE)
&/
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.22, V.C,PLAZA
DR.DI\/.G.ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
EANGALORE -- 4
BY ITS MANAGER.
3. SMT K N GIRIJA
MAJOR
NO.l09/1, HEGGANAHALLI X ' * , 2 '
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. . }';,RE'SPOND'L"E'N*TS ;
{BY SR1: C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATEFOR
RESPONDENT NO.1, NOTICE IS RES'P.ON--D_ENT NO..2_
IS DISPENSED WITH) —
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AR-PEA:.f’I’S:FIL.–E.D’UND_EfR SECTION 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARTD DATED 13.7.2009
PASSED IN MVC NO.4.1423/.2,007;;ON:THE-.I?I’LIE_j-OF THE I4″ ADDITIONAL
JUDGE AND NIACT, 3_COL%RTV OE SMALL_ C.AUSE’,”””BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE C_L’AIM.__ ‘R55-“IjITI’O.N._._IrO_R ‘-7COMPEi\|SATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OFCOMPENSATIONQ’-.’ij=
THIS N:II’SCEI_:LANEOLIjS-L..r=IRST–__ARI?EAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVER’ED ‘THE*.=’OLLOwING:-
U.’-D M E N T
V. aEppea!._ Is bytttéthe Claimant for enhancement of
ComV’p.eT:SeatiDn.R’awaIfI;*.e.Ci by the Tribunai.
‘V 2. H’ear”‘C.Ep, ttTe appeal Is admitted and with the Consent of
.1–.At’h’e:§Iea’rrIIeIj Cpnunsei appearing for the parties, it is taken up for
I I fs n–a.i.~ d¥;;p¢sAa:.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as they are referred to in the ciaim petition before the Trit§’i;4:na_tIt.
4. The brief facts of the case:
On 2?.11.2006, when the deceased-was7_pro.ceed_in:g-.asHa
piilion rider in a motorcycle bearing
91374, a Tata Sumo Car bearing re:g’i~~stration__
came in a rash and negligent manner.’amid’-»,,dashed’-against their
motor cycle. As a result, he grievous
injuries and st:ccumt3,ed._to His wife, two
minor children :ic:iaVi_mH’VVpetition before the
MACT, Bang’aior_e–,Aseeiafiiifiigclomipenmtion of Rs.21,00,000/~. The
Tribunai hast’ of Rs.3,61,000/- with
interest at§6%.per aV’iin._uVm. V
no dispute regarding the death of
lifi’-t.._}.fenkateg_o’wda’lintthe road traffic accident, negligence and
_:i_l’i’_–i.i,a4t§i’i.i_ty of theizisurer of the offending vehicie, the only point that
5._’_’ar.i_sels f.or'”i*r_1y consideration in the appeal is:
%’
“whether the compensation awarded by
Tribunai is just and reasonable or does it 2
enhancement?”
6. After hearing the teamed counsel”ap’oea’rin.g’–.fo.:rWVt.he’
parties and perusing the judgment. and awalrri of th’e…T’ripuria.l”,’iIjfi
am of the view that the compensatio’ii.yavrarded~hy”ti9ie Tribunal is
not just and reasonabie, itvi’s’~~.on t_«h.e”_to’wera”s.irde and hence it is
required to be enhanced.
7. The at the time of
his death in from the post mortem
report wife, two minor chiidren
and parents. of their contention that
the deceagfsed. was” ~ Rs.15,000/– per month have
eixagrniinedgvlllthell’tiistkalvaimant as PW~1 and one P.S.Narayana, the
owner’.of5′._thAe”‘s’lf,.opfin””which he was carrying on the footwear
V’j;hu’si_ness as PTW.-2″””arid produced rental agreement E>_<j:'ij:§) awarded as
against Rs.3,36,OOC1_/4'awarded l
8. As the Tribunal towards ‘loss of
consortium’ ‘loss of estate’ are just and
proper, not einhvancement.
»9:fRs.5;OQOZ?’~-.awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘funerai
e:><penses'-.,isv"on"_'»-thaivlower side and is enhanced by another
V7__Rs.5V,O0O/'k~" therefore, Rs.10,ClOO/- is awarded under this
&
10. In addition, Rs.20,000/– is awarded towards ‘iove and
affection’ at Rs.10,000/- each to the two minor childrenrx
11. Thus, the claimants are entitied for
compensation:-
a) Loss of dependency
b) Loss of consortium _ –‘–Rsw.- 10,0-i3.QvV
c) Loss of love and affection ‘ __ — R-5, Vi20’,QO’Q\_w,
d) Loss of estate – Rs.” ~..10,G0Ofl:
e) Funerai expenses 1G,0_OO_.’
TOTAL V _ °Rlj>i.t1%’5r.36,ooo
12. Accordingiyi;st.p..Vp:Vtheigappeal in part. The
Judgmefit 335″ is modified to the
extent statedzhietrein are entitied for a total
compensation as against Rs.3,61,000/–
aiwardpedA.Trit§’on’a*:-~’with interest at 6% p.a. on the
enhanced of Rs.1,75,E)OO/- from the date of ciaim
vpvetition’ ti.ii”dthe_d’at”erof reaiisation.
]13.Vsc_.Thei”‘insurance Company is directed to deposit the
“V.::en4ha_nc.ed’compensation amount with interest within two months
-the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
%*”
14. Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs.5G,GO0/€”‘e.ach
with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested.’_;ir).__’_ifi.):e’d.é
deposit in the name of claimants 1 to 3, who a_reIws[fe
minor children of the deceased; fl-\%_at’ionVa’li’s:ed«
Bank/Scheduied Bank/Post Office for a period». of 1Q’..ig’eAa’r*s
of first claimant and till the date rorffiattainrn’e_nt’*of majoirity in
case of ciaimants 2 and 3. R’e’n’iain_i”n’o’_amotiritwith proportionate
interest is ordered to be releasreedifirliryfa-tr_o’L}rr’V’~.of.. claimant No.4
immediately after the”tle’pos§=t. g A
15. No o_rd’er_as[_t_Q costs.”
sd/-E
Eudqe
KM V