IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH may OF NOVEMBER? @099
PRESENT fiddd
THE I-ION'BLE MILJUSTICE N. 'd T' 1'
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE
M.F.A.No. 8133'e£ 2006
Between:
Sri. E Lakshminarayana I5.'48, . I
Near C V Naya.};VHa'1.I.,
Kadri :vMain'"Rdovad, .4 '
Mangaleorta PM * VA
" TV " % ' v Appellant
{By Sri. SKNQ Bhat, ';f_\dV;.}'
' }_».V° J.a4Vg"a.;r:.rT"atha Nayak.
« __ 'S~,/i0._K3fis.1--*1na Nayak,
A V Nehm Road, Gory Gudda,
Mar:-galore.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bridge Road Branch.
Balmatta, Mangalore.
. Respondents
I-J
{By Sri. Vishwajith Shetty. Adv. for R1,
Sri. M. Arun Ponnappa, Adv. for R2}
$=l==l=*=l=
This MFA is filed U/s. }73{1) of MV A(:tMatgv§aifist.'vvt.he
Judgment and award date: 08.05.2006 passed..V_'in_"lVWC
No.756/2003 on the file of the Prl. otst.__' Jtteiget e.;;pd
Member, MACT, D.K. Mangalore.Vpa»rt1y al1'owi11g"the_clairrae
petition for Compensation and s_ '-seeliing 'furtlier T.
enhancement of compensation. '
This appeal is eomin_g«.,._'.on for hearing,.--...thi.s day,"
N. K. Patil J, delivered the ftillowing" '-
This appeal is :.,agains:ti,»Vthe judgment and
awe.rde,_dettecifseseos in M.V.C.No.756/2008 on the
file of dthe*l?rin_e'i}jal Judge and Member Motor
Accident Claix1*1_s:vVTrit:)u11al, D.K., Mangalore { hereinafter
» refer1'ed'«to.Vas. 'Tribunal' for brevity).
Tribunal by its judgment and award.
awarded a sum of Rs.4,90,000/~-- with interest at 6% pa.
it the date of petition till the date of realisation. as
" »v.-against, the claim of the appellants for Rs.l5,O0._000/M.
The grievance of appellant that the amount: awarded by
the Tribunal towards loss of dependency
expenses is inadequate and it requires ~
3. The brief facts of the c_ase__are:'u' ll ' it
The claimant mu appellant is
the deceased Srnt. Nalini contends t:ha'twwl'iis wife»
Smt. Nalini Rao wasvaged about_:'55"-.years'andmttvorking as
First Grade of Education
and Trainirlgt of Rs. 12,028/-
per i'I1OHlLl";-.'.'H ::aAt.V.about 1.10 p.m. on a
public{:_roacl 'city, the deceased being the
pillion rider "onéf scooter bearing registration
No..»§¥. was proceeding near lvianjunath
ranspoi*ts«.:nea'r P.V.S. Circle. At that time the offending
laiitericlcshavkrhearing registration No. KA~i9~43ll came
frorn ..h'i;t1dV4side and overtook the scooter and without.
A giVii1.g any signal, all of a sudden, turned to left side in a
reckless manner, as a flit the deceased fell down and
...,.-.--«»----"-*'""""""""""""°"'""~""
:1
sustained injuries. Immediately she was admittedto City
Hospital and in spite of best medical i:reatmeiit_;'~i.vshe
suceurnbed to the injuries on l6«4wO3. On
death of Smt. Nalini Rao, t.he_.ap.pella_nt',l"
petition claiming compensation
the respondents. it t it h it
4. The said ._had 'Cornell up before
the Tribunal on 13~5«2l(lll(3Vvl'€.>_'.' hearing the
learned considering the
oral and on record, has
allowed the appellant in part and
awardedl.Rs.4,90,000/-- with interest at
6%»«3:perl"ann1.lni..from the date of petition till the date of
rea1isa..tion_...pVlThe compensation awarded under different
heads is follows :
of dependency Rs.3,60,000/»»
b) Medical expenses Rs. 1. 1 1,000/--
C) Incidental charges Rs. 4.000/«
If __M___w_",._,,,__,.M.._...
£
(1) Loss of consortium Rs. 10.00Q/~
e) Towards funeral expenses Rs.
.
5. Being aggrieved byvthejirnpugnedlghjdgeritxent .
and award the appellant halspresented ~ond1:l1.e’
ground that t.he eo1r_1pensa:ti.ori’vawarded”‘bit Tribunal
towards loss of :t1*ansportation and
funeral expenses is enhancement
by the Tribunal.
_ .A n§;’ar_d the learned Counsel appearing
for thehappellantl ‘learned Counsel appearing for
the ‘ ‘§’es}_3.ondent . 2
it _ 7;. careful evaluation of the original records,
seniergesiltiiat, the deceased Smt. Nalini Rao was aged
about 5’6 years, working as First Grade Assistant in
V”~v’_A{_)ist’rict Institute of Education and Training, Mangalore,
wgiraxvirig a salary of Rs. 12,028/«~ as per Ex.P.8. Out of that
(3
R3100/– is to be deducted towards professional and
net salary of the deceased would be Rs.1.1,92 of
which 50% is to be deducted towards persona} deaf»
the deceased. The age of the appellant df .
accident was 61 years. The profits?
‘7’ as per the judgment ofVd’t–1d_:e”.,H011A;l;l.e ind
the case of SARLAV DELHI
TRANSPORT coRPoféAfio;xr reported in
2009 ACJ “v;a£3”})e11ant is entitled
to a sum x 12 months x 7
ddfddddvdependency as against
Rs.3,6f)~,.Q’00 mg Tribunal.
“uFL_:drth.er dthe'”:Tribun_a1 has erred in awarding
Rs*.5;”OQO/~–dVdidifilrds funeral expenses. The said
I iiieavdequate. Therefore. we award Rs.10.000/–
towards’ 1″u1i*era1 expenses.
9. In so far as the amount. awarded towards
medical expenses. incidental charges and loss of
consortium is just and proper, it does not : efa11 for
interference.
10. Having regard to the-ifaeis andvei’1*e’urnsfa1ices’~
of the case, as stated aiaovejifiied
claimant Qappellant is a11oW–e.dV–si11 part. tuh-:e’V’judgment’
and award is modified;.._’i’he»:§i3’feAa_};;dpe~is asdurxdef :
a} Loss 0fAdepend’e11.<{yA " fiVRs.5,OO,97E3/–
:5} M Rs. 1, 1 1 ,000/W
V Rs. 4000/»
1. – pf Rs. 10,000 / ~
e}’sTranspeffafien of dead body
.._4’«a,1:1dA:¥1n1era1 expenses Rs. 10.000/ »
z is–ii’. The appeflant. is entitled to a total
‘geompensatioxl of Rs.6,35,976/– as against. Rs.«4~,90,000/-