High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Sushila @ Sushilabai vs Mahanthappa Gouda on 29 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Sushila @ Sushilabai vs Mahanthappa Gouda on 29 August, 2008
Author: H.Billappa
IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARNA'§'AKA 

c1R<:U3:1' BENCH AT GULBARGA;~~-- I  " 

DATED TEES 'i'HE 29TH DAY OF 2508 T    A 

Pkasmmi   »   J
THE HONBLE MR. ,;I,;%s*1*1'€::}3;;V'.;»«1. §3IV'.Ea'«-'J}'v,"'-J$#:l'T'):j'[')'.A'v  %%
THE HQNBLE MR.Jf;ISTI_Cf_ :SVi§ EENI\«?§§;SE§V'GOWDA


BETWEEN:   

1 : sM'I? TS%:;fsm§,..A  Q{.1S}iILABAI
W/"Q~LATE'.%AMA:'§UTH.E
MMQR ©C<:3:'§10"LIsEH0LD

2 ;' BHAéYA_ sHREE
 3:3./O..LATE' 'P»*E--;'é;i-2[YI'HI
_§;£1.N_C)'RV, OCC:S'I'UIZ)ENT

 'T~§s;?fl1§}§§NDER
S__1('}~.i1.ATE MARUTHI
MAJOR OCC:S'I'UDE)NT

 S/CLLATE MARUTHI
' MAJOR o;D§;';»*ARGQ1x1AL§ T INDIA ASSURANCE Co LTD
'§'.HROU(}I~I ITS DMSIONAL MANAGER

"  JAWAL1 COMPLEX,

 SUPER MARKET,
GULBARGA. ...RESPQNDEN'i'S

(BySri. RV. Nadagmzda, Adm, fer R2, R1 served)
4/



4
elaimeé compensation of Rs. 14,94,000/-. The 
has awarded conxpensafiorz of Rs. 2,30,Q(,":'¥_7ViV./ "---hééej'

interest at 6% pa.

5. Aggrieved by that, the appeiiaiits Tfiled '

this appeal, seeking enhaneeniefit, 
contended that the"~.e0m«fie1fiSa1:iQf:._é.awardee1 by the
Tribunal under the hem-1_e%%2<ss'$  is totaiiy

inadequate a1ic¥:;:T.et}1erefere';"':itheeéie.re' be modified. He

also _ 'there are five defiefgdants, the
TribuI1a§};~ :'1--ot"' in deducting 1/SW' amount

t.ow;§rde persefiely exfsenses. He also submitted that the

  __ erred While taking the income of the

 -:ieeeaeeeI."_'*L--at'T§;;.'Iés.6(}/- per day as the deceased was

V -V  Erick kiln. He therefore submitted that the

 .. iuipfqgeed Juégnent ané Award needs to be modified.

 else submitted that the eompensatien awarded by

V'  {he Tribunal uneier the heads 3055 sf censertium, 1055 of

1/

"-7 . The learned eofizejsel f"oi*   



estate and funeral expenses is totaliy inadequa'tef"ar1d4

therefore, it needs to be modified.

8..-. As against this, the ieam: 7ed"eo'i_1;'fiSe1"  
V V  ._ .   .

respondent. submitted that   ._

consideration of the materisdddon record; }i;aeV”:Vaix%arded V

‘ just and reasonable hence; it does

not call for interference.

9%;/We rhe submissions
made by tine parties.

IO» our consideration is,
whether oo1n;:eoe:atjor1″awarded by the Tribune] is

justgjmad proper?’

relevantemro note the Tfibonal has awarded

of Re.2,01,600/~ towards loss of

defsencienefi} taking the income of the deceased at

3 per day and adopting muitipiier of 14. it is in

Vrdliedeviderzee of P.W.1 that the deceased was owning a

2 “otriek Loin, but, there is no acceptable evidence on

record. Therefore, in our considered view, it is just and

12/

proper to take ths income ef the deceased at R380/-

per day. Accordixlgly, it is taken. The ‘I’1’ibfiu1f3_;a:1::’~has

deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses,

correct as there are 5 dependants. our”

corzsidered vicw, it is just 1ii;._

towards personal expensc$’T__’;A_ccordiI;g,1}z_, it, iae:.§jda*=:ciuCted.’~» ‘

If I/5th is deducted ;__towa:flc1s. ‘éxpgnsgés, then,
the loss of dependeniijffgef to Rs. 1920/-

and per axxrmzzi it cogiiééifi: If multiplier of

14 is:’1vad§3}j§1f§’:T€:”,Vcompcnsafion payable untier

the heé_ici. 1esS comes to Rs.3,ili2,5€~30/–

(mzgex1.2×1§e–3k,i;2,5e.o/-.;. Accordizlgly, 1:; is awarded.

~T;’ibuna1 has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/–

. t-

t£di%za19ds:’éV1QssV~i§:§f.estate and a aum of R:s.5,00{)/– towards

loéé of Céfisertium which needs in be enhanced.

K x V 15s.cct:;rdii1gI}? it is anhanced ti) Rs.2{),OO0/ » each.

— The Tribunal has awaztied a sum sf Rs.5,000/–

V

V’ Eowards 1053 of icrve and afiectien which needs to be

enhanstid. Accordingly, it is enhanced to Rs.10,()0()/–.

I’/.

Hg. We award a sum of Rs.10,000/—- towards fiirmral

expenses and transpertation charges in3t::a £- bf’

E33400] – awaxfied by the Tribunal.

[5, The campensatian awaI:’§:’1ad,1:.4[«b§””‘.T[

ts-Wards medical expenses Visjust and’ 1i%{.=.xim ‘ L’

it does not cail for intezferentga _

I6. The tcsta} cos3§_{j:r<en:§at1;ati " 'fiéyable 0011155 11)

Rs.3,9:2,560/ — and

a) Tqwa:d’s has of’d_<-:§pen.;1ven(iy Rs.3,22,560/ –

b) Tewazfids logs 0_f’P_(fiI1S{)I_’CZIi1In Rs. 20,000] –
C) *Towards.10ss% of«r::sta1.a- Rs. 20,000]-

d) Towards Vf’11’r:;z:I’:2a1_ expanses
transpdrtatjén charges Rs. 18,000] —
6:). _ ToWar§is.m;ed1;:ai~’éxpenses Rs. 16,000/–
.. *3) ‘TowaI€d*s..1oss of love
” E,’-r~;nd_aff’e£:tiG11′ _ Rs. 10,000] –

I~2s.3,92,550/…

fiécordingly, thfi appeal is allowed and the
L41.

“iris-ggguéied Judgment and Award passed by the Tribmlal

M.V.C.N0.518/01 Stands modified g’ant:lI1g

2 “c0Inpensa’£i¢.:>n of Rs.3,92,S60/- with interest at 6% pa.

fmm the date of petition till the data of payment. In ad}

l»/

other respects, the J1.1dgneI)i and awanti pa$s¢ §1 ‘v~..

Tribunal mnains Lmdistxlxbej. R»-3 shail V

amount Within six weeks fiemtcdéiy. ‘ « «_