Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Sumathi W/O Late C Harisha vs P Y Chandra S/O Giddegowda on 29 January, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And Gowda
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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.152 seconds.