BETWEEN:
1.
1NnmHmacmmTmHmmmwAArmmmumm
DWH$TmSHm2W"mWOFMWWmI2MB
:PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'l.'ICE N. K. z>_A--.*fiI'.A*jV"L:%~% {T _
AND
THE I-ION'BLE MR..zUs'rIcE
M.F.A.No. 8510.gf 2OOé"--{MV}, 7-V': °
Sumathi, ' -_
W/0. Late C. Harishag' '
Aged aboutA23 ye.33:s., _ '
Kurn. Raiishéiia, . 1' V
D:/0. 'Fiéiri_S}1,V.ét, _
Aged -.ab0u't.O-2 Vy§ea1f's'~,---._ ~
Mi3i1or,«. rep-rcsé:}1ted_ by ner
mothfir / guard.1an f1Vrst
appellant.' .V
- ' " """ " 'V
1 * --. _ \z"J_/ Late Chandregowda,
" . abo1_,fiL43 years.
A vafé 'jnélislding at
"V1naya"ka Badavane.
Che'cranahaJ11 Road,
V» * Near Sangalirayana Chathra,
"111 Ward, K. R. Nagar,
' "Mysore District.
Appellants
34/;
[By Sri. C. M. Jagadeesh, Adv.)
AND:
l.
P. Y. Chandra,
S / 0. Giddegowda,
Resident of Shankarapura
Channarayapatna Depot, 1
I-Iassan District.
Managing Director,
K. S.R.T.C. .
Channarayapatna; .__
Hassan.
Hassan I)i{=isi.on,:=__ g
Hassanh 'V '
The Divisional Co1'I"u*ollei' "
. Respondents
(syd0'is1~:,'[i%'M.li%:;ira:;s;i:arai1;»iAE1v. for 12.2, R3,
1 4-» notiee'A'dispens_ed.'with V / 0. dated 03-12-2009)
" . >2: =i= are
uMFlA'is__fi1evd U/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the
award dated 2605-2006 passed in MVC
_ N02/_ -the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & JMFC.
IV'.vAC'l',..H'-Jnsur, partly allowing the claim petition for
Con1pens.at.i'iori and seeking enhancement of compensation.
.'l'"'his appeal coming on for Hearing, this day,
A "it Patil J , delivered the following:
%.-»~«--»-*'"
JUDGMENT
This is a claimants’ appeal directed
impugned judgment and award dated
in MVC No.2/2005 on the file of the “c*ii;;1″iJu;c1a<§¢r (sf.Din)hiia
JMFC, Add}. MACT, Hunsu:r,_ [heireinaiter ireferredii
'Tribunal' for brevity].
2. The Tribunéaiiihibir iéjvfifigfiifint and award,
awarded a of ‘deducting 40%
towards the part of the
deceasech”‘viifiih’infe1*est.Vgat’E§%’~~p,.ai as against the claim of
the claimants — on account of the death
of the deceased late AS1_r»i.”~¥.;*iarisha, in a road traffic accident.
hefirigxiaiace ofVth–e–«”appe11ants is that the compensation
i__aiwjarded._gVE)5}’i’ Tribunal is inadequate and hence, it is
required. enhanced by modifying the judgment and
Waward ofthe Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are:
/«/»
The appellants No.1 and 2 N» claimants are the wife
and minor child and appellant No.3 is the m0th.er_l:’0t’the
deceased. They have filed a claim petitidri
compensation against the respondents on’ acce:i;xnt’ 04_f;th.e it
death of the deceased
deceased was working as a dri\_fer_0f gbods.temp~Q”a1idl was”
earning more than Rs.-31.000′,/-<* lvmenthllas. salary and
Rs. 100/» per day as bread earner
in the family}, thielll "depended on his
income. day, on 2443-04 at
9.45 coming from Uppina
Angadi village taluk, Hassan, in his own
Vehicl_e,_ Terh'pQ_V'beVari1Aig Vl'§.t).KA–O9/9707, driving the said
iiffiaa 'm0dei"ate"speed on the left side of the road by
norms, when he reached the place
near-…Rateml_aii'1e on N.l~l.48 on B.M.R0ad, at that time, the
"'–._Vilrstprespeildent being the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing
a.li*«::gi'st.r*ation No. KAml3/F4104 coming from Hassan in a
rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed
/w,/~
6
6. We have gone’ through the grounds urged in
the memorandum of appeal and heard the_4vv,iearned
Counsel appearing for the respondents
considerabie length of time.
7. The learned C,ou_nse1″-ehdappearingd for’:
respondents No. 2 and 3, outset. that,
contributory neg1igenCt:._.T’J§edd.’aid Igart Of the
driver of the KSRTC the Tribunal
ought to _.;:347t;1.§:’:’;éétid”isubmission cannot
be of fact recorded by the
Tribune}, ._ the oral and documentary
evidence. “‘Hence;’* the s-aid. submission is rejected.
‘After ‘Vcafeful evaluation of the materia} on
.1-eoord ” of the impugned judgment and award,
we =-..are_.~ View that the Tribunal after critical
of the oral and documentary evidence has
fixed the contributory negiigence of 40% on the
part of the deceased. Hence, we uphold the same.
%/
However, the Tribunal has committed error in taking the
net income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.3,000/– per
month. It is inadequate. Hence, it needs reassessment.
Deceased was a young and energetic driver, drivingiiis
Tempo. He was aged about 25 years. ffiie
occurred in the year 2004. We cansafegly assestsi, inco_i:r1e’i’of it ‘
the deceased at Rs.4,000/– per
i.e. Rs.1,333/– is deducted tVow:ars:is hisVpersonaigexpensesf’ V
Hence, net income comes to'”R’sVr,:2.66_7/–. d””I’he”‘deceased
was aged about 25 years..i.”Pro1u5e’r is ‘I8′ in the
Eight oftiie decision in Sarla Verma and
others “.113; «.Délhi Corporation and another
reportevd in 4’20V_O9,1§1(.’-vA3_ 134.38. Accordingly, we redetermine
‘st.”‘1ossi—-.of:,,.deper1dency'”‘at Rs.5,76,072/~« (RS266?/~»~ x 12 x
ya ~ -I)
diihe Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.10,000/-
A ftowdards loss of consortium. Since, it is just and
d regasonabie, it does not call for interference.
%/
10. The Tribunal has failed to award any
compensation towards loss of estate. We deem it fit to
award £0,000/- under this head.
11. The Tribunal has erred in
towards loss of love and afi”ec.tion. “l’he_’v.sari1e __is”
inadequate. The appellants are the minor”
mother of the deceased. V§l’3:l’fl5_’VarC1″
loss of love and affection to.–each'”-.appe1lan.t. J§The total
compensation towards loss of_V1lor’e affection comes to
Rs.15,000/-. he
awarded compensation of
Rs.5,A0O0/–lltoward’s trarislportation and funeral expenses.
.”–Sin”cel,’ itc’.is”l~inade(‘]iiat’e, we deem it fit to award a sum of
-R:s.._e]lO;(l(3<.l/'–lVlVtow.ards the said head.
13., “Thus, total compensation towards conventional
it ilvl[jehteaas is Rs.45,000/-
//My
14. The appellants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.6,2I,072/»« as against Rs.-$08,000/–
awarded by the Tribunal. Out of this, 40% is deducted
towards contributory negligence on the part iofrapthe
deceased. The net total compensation ‘to
Rs.3,72,6-43/–.
15. The appellants TV are «.a
compensation of Rs.3,72,643}’;;”*ras l–l’
awarded by the Tribunal. _<'Theda-Ilenhancenientllvcomes to
Rs.1,15,243/- with interestlatld the date of
petition till 't.'r1e'dat,pe'reali_sa.tior1.
_Ti:1e dr'espond–en't_slI<§o. 2 and 3 are directed to deposit
.– . ,.,.the-'.t._'leril1.anced 'compensation amount together with
period of four weeks from the date of
receipt vol' of the judgment.
” of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,15,243/–
_ l’AI’x’,§;~:al».l5A(Al),OOO/- with proportionate interest, shall be kept in
llllliixed Deposit in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank in
W
10
the name of the second appellant till she attains majority
and thereafter renewable by five years with permission to
the appellant No.1 to withdraw the interest accrued
thereon periodically for the welfare of the appellarithkklo. 2
till her majority and thereafter, the seeond’_;appellarit:lA’ 1,6
permitted to withdraw the interest periodi_c~a1ly’;.Vv V
The remaining compensation
proportionate interest sha’ilp:~V””~.tbe V. releasedl”‘:Vlp4in”‘ equal’
proportion in favour uof the “najppellante'”No”.ll and 3
immediately on deposit second and
third respondeiitsprl p
Offiee.. todraw the award, accordingly.
…..
JUDGE
HEDGE
