V «"I 'E nimqninm
' .L.c_ LILD l¥I 5 l.u..u.\..I.\..u.,
: ungjun 1:-fin
iii "I""'E iii'i-i ""R'T' I? nuuc.IIA'|'.Mut
DATED THIS THE 1173 DAY OF MARCH 200%
BEFORE
ran: uownur. _MR.JU8T!OE 3.3. Pa§€I'I!.:AiVVVV V
n_1.F.;. N9.a69 Q: my .'V 1£VVVV V
'L Mohan Da_,
S/o.Ram Das,
Aged abaut 59 yea1*s;.
EC:
Srisuresh, ' 'V V'
S/o.P.I{.MohaVn Das. .
Aged about year's; '
Both V
A nhurri 11.55 I-"l'.v.'€ §11'nV'i'I .
l-ll: V vva, twins! #4:'
In fi:<;1ft%6£.5VISE,4:;§§p11ggc.¥VVV'V "
G1?.Vnd1upr:t,. _v V .
Ch;ama_1=ajnage§1: uIV3i§11V:i'i9t;-- ._ '
(By sz-1.K;rr,V G-u;11d¢v;§rasV§::;1V;'Adv.)
j 'M13.' T33-flfiyfitem Logistics International
1.
V1¢*’Vivii.’1e, Tumkur Road,
A Madavaifa.Vfl1agc, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalnrc Rural District.
.2. India Insurance Co.,
V K.=Cr=RQLI.f3_ Branch,
V’ No.40/3, Geetha Mansion,
, ___..’I ………,…..1.._… l”_”£l”\ l’I.l’\l’\
K.G.Ruuu, Buuguwzc ” QUU UV?’
Rep. by its Divisional Manager.
(By Sriisflarayanamurthy, Adv. for R-2
R-1 notice dispensed With)
APPELLANT! V
REBPONDENTS
This appeal is filed u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
against the Judgment ‘and Award dated 24.10.2005 passed in
MVC No. 123712001 on the file of the Prl. MACT &. Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Metmpolitan Aiea, e_($CCH-
1), partly allowing me claim pefiticn for winpensai’–.ietif~’.
seeking enhancement of compensation. x 1′ i
This Appeal coming on for:-fina1« dayfthe 1′.
Court delivered the foilowing:
1. This is an appeai seeking enhancement
of compensation. f *
2. in an accident :%C’d1″i’\;I’1″3fi”‘1V7-02.2001, o”e Julian
Kasu’ 1ri she was traveiiing in a ‘bus. It is
the caflaseii 1 eat because of the rash and
negligent by its driver, the lorry dashed
against Viriesulting in grievous injuries to the
A.AShc”irias’Vshifled to Victoria Hospital where she
the injuries. The husband and the son of the
deceased Claim Petition under Section 166 -1′ t__. Mot-r
.’e._.ic1es’:…et seeking compensation in a stun’ of Rs.10,00,000j’.
contended that apart from supporting the family
through her household work, the deceased was drawing’
it Rs.1,969/- as salaxy by working as a Cook. In this regard, a
salary certificate was produced as Ex.P’7.
61/
” rleees-.. ed np.,.rtf. mwo–..’n
3. The Tribunal only took note of the salary certificate and
deducting I/3″‘ towards personal expenses of thed_eeeased
.11. applvi H t . multiplier of 14, or-m’m-d _..i;.”‘t.;e~—-._l§ess”‘of
_J __..= –._-V Ia-IQLVII
defindency at Rs.1,47,G(:'{:’;’-, Rs.1G,GO{?;—.– ‘ash
conventional amount. Thus, aT__sumeho}f ‘T§s.1’,F3’7;00Q/~=.s: s’=,vas’*~
awarded towards loss of depettdeuc3r_.d_l”‘A sunth’
was awarded towards uanstlot’tafi.ou expenses.
Rs.5,000/- each loss “of love and
afl’ection, loss of consotf_tVi_utn_ illossillvotl Thus, in all a
sum of Rs”. as compensation.
Aggtived thy jigs”lt1§a,..ef.;;t;..t;=c;:a._peI1sati<.1n, the claimants are
. . ' . …
‘ A and-
befere was Cf ‘ .
4. Clomjzltsellforl the submits that as is clear from
the ;tfl’£slity };r»¢1;te’ evidence made available before the Tribunal,
. uit: me-elhyvv eh” ‘v’v”s a h’u”e–ife the family alone
consisting’ herself, her husband and son. Thexefore, the
ought to have taken her services rendered
‘coIttr1’bution made to the family while arriving at the monthly
_ fwages.
(‘av
5. There is considerable force in the submission made by
the counsel for the appellants in this regard. Though the
deceased was working as a Cock and was earning -,
it cannot be lost sight that she was suppoxtirifiilher
taking care of the household worfkf’ The faccirl1ent_ f
place in the year 2001. Even ‘tlie~ is
duties as a housewife Ewes also earning by
working as a Cools,’ Theieibiie, was not justified in
only Her services to the
familypyouglii note of. In my view, this
is the income of the deceased is
be as””..l§s..J3,000/– per month inasmuch as
ram. eamine as a employee “she was looking
–J: 3′ _- _ ._ _.,_.H___a .._
L’:-ee1*a1cfing 1i3f-‘3 towards her personal expenses, if
the loss of dependency is worked out, the same will
come ts;Rs.24,000–/–. Having regard to her age at the time of
fdeanth, which was found to be 48 years, the relevant multiplier
be adopted is 12. If the loss of dependency is calculated on
this basis, the same will work out to Rs.2,88,000/–. The
M/
K)
-5…
am’ “fliiiif aWa1u”””d by e ‘i’fi’o’una1’ ” T,0WL””‘aIt1″‘S other heads does not
require any interference as the same is fair and masonable.
6 111 L… -..su..- a_.d .or the fomg..:..g, … …. I .
… …… m1.._ …………-……. .-….. .. …1…-..1.. 1…. ..1_.._,… .. …….. ….. – L:
11.1 PUI1-.o l..l.I. D 1JCl..l.§I’.’-1+ LI. ti} Will Ll tl.I. U 3.I.|.i..1.I ti’? ‘3 I.’
is determined and fixed at Rs.3,1:3_,_OU(:’).j}f.fjv iare
entitled for interest at 6% p.a; on
the date of petition till its maliéation. Tile. amount
shall be deposited withiifa eigélitpweekeiifiom the date
of receipt of a copy of is entitled
for the costs of appeal ginéa b£1§§’;3,ooo;-
PKS ”