IN "TYIE IwIiGE---i C7(')URT (H7 KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT i3EN(.'§f-1 AT
DHARWAD. 7
DATED "FMS "I'}~n:~: 22" DAY (1);? PYIEBRUARY _:;0--m "
PRE SENT
m1+; 1~1<)N*Bu:: MR.ms'I'1C£ N¢1<T PA'r1i;.%' % 7
AND: .
"rm: HON'BLE MR. 3tJs'I"1C1§:";$:s.RAcia:;«1«}3P%UR:£
M.F.A. N¢m--.#_1j977%fi20a:':~6%"('Mfvjv
Between: "
1. Talari SreenEvaTs'R«aV§j;
Age: 26 yeays, -'
S/0 fate Ranégi
fa)
Taiari Gopa .Ktis-hn~a_,4"V%
Age: 23"*»{ears, -- " ,
S/0 fate Raimamo, OcC:Ag,rai}..
3. . _ Smt.,«.§:§/ézttékuti Bhagya Laxmi,
2 1
_Sfi3§3riiV'3«.$, ';)"CCI Household work
,_AE1 are fesi'cEéntsA u fK;5ttaiah Camp,
V 'C}'angavati';««.Dis;; K-Q-;ppal.
% cfb%andr;:s1aekar P. Pam. Advocate)
~ Appeilants
ta:
1. The Divisioriaf ?vl;iiiag,_e1',
United India insurance Coinpany Limited,
Di\~"lSl()H£ii C)fTce, \='.V. Stikhmni Coinplex,
Gandhi Chowk, Raichur.
iv
S. Veereshappa sfo Gangaiina,
Age: Major, Owner of TI'E1{ZIO1',
R/o Kariakagiri village,
Tq. Gangavati, Dist. Koppel.
(by Sri S. Srishaila, Advocate for R1, _
by Sri K. Ananda Kumar, Advocate tbr_i_{2) i
This appeal is filed u/S i73(1ciigoiM.Vi.».Act against the
judgment and award dated 24.1---2.2005i-paseediiin.M.V.iC;-No. l3/2005
on the file of Civil Judge (iSE7.r:'1r")l1.)i_&;V"iVIA,CT;".CI£lflg3V3.Ii'1l, partly
allowing the claim petition forit---eoi'npensé;tioi'i__ and seeking
enhancemeiit ofcompen.3_ation.vii~i- " = i ~
This appe'a*E --tto'ijnin§ifi«:3'i1 f'o.rA'hearin'g"'on interlocutory application
this day, N.KZ;Patil 5., d«efi«.ye'1ied'tiheifoilowing:
se,;<ii__Mm
1._,, 'Fhe»sg;,hv this m2itters_____E__s.posted for hearing on interlocutory
ap;5i--i_Acat.ioii~,b3a_con:aent._of counsel appearing for both the parties the
' iii»--_g3.pp€a.i ietaiizen Lzp'i€;;r7fin2il disposal on merits.
...~-»'
5"
.5 -I' Respondentsii
7. This is elaitnants’ appeal seeidng enhancement o1’compensati0n
directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 24.12.2005
passed in ;’\r1.V.C. No. 1312005 on the file 0fCi\:-‘iE fudge (Sr. &
MACT, Gang,avathi on a<:c.ount of the death of Rama Rao"'ira«
traffic accident.
3. Brteffaets ofthe case are:
The ont vrievance made out .5 ‘-the ‘3e1″iantse.at’1’tVhe outsetis
that, deceased was aged about 55 years, ;5′:’ofes.sion} was an
agriculturést and was also havi’r’:3″a. Af1’oLuz§mi1’i*–1n the viliage. He was
getting st1bstahtia’1″iertCOm1e:fai1djdtieatés. t1′:e”_1{arta of the famiiy. The entire
appeflants he1§”e_in” are deceased Rama Rao, may be
they are :naj0rs.’*;Qn vaeeotint death of Rama Rate in the road
tz’affic aeeifjientt.ocet1:’tedV1on 15.08.2004 at 10.00 am. due to the rash
and’°r1eg1’igént,.*.,od1’i’vjng ot'”t’h’eV driver of the offending vehicle. the
co.én.p’Ea.w%na.n.t?s*v.fi1’ed~da”claim petition U/S 166 of M.V. Act seeking
compens’atiVon1.” «1T_11_e’~s’aiVd efaétn petition came up before the Tribunal
V161′ consEd«e1’atj_o:1..V .i’~”Fhe “I”ribLmz1§ in tum after assessing the osal and
é.
docu1nenta.ry evidence and other materiais on fiie ailowed the same
awarding compensation 0f’R$l. i,O0,000:”- with interest at 9% pa from
the date of petition Iii! the date of payment. The coinperisation
awarded by the “hibunal is inadequate hence claimants ha_ve.§5re’se§jitedi.
this appeal seeking enhaneeinent.
4. We have heard the learned Counsei appearing foriaifioeiiaintisjanids i
learned counsel appearing for respondents.
5. After carefui perusal oftE’aeV_impagnedijtndgnjent and aii/ard what
emerges is _Co:nnaitted grave error in not
awarding any a-znount ».oit.’–~estate. Having regard to the age
of the deceasediiia-rid the ‘a.i;§9ocation we can safely assess the
income “deceasedaVt____Rs,. 3,000/- pm. out of which 1/3 to be
personal expenses of the deceased and the net
incoi’n_e”i:;<)1ir1e.j:"toiRis.«2;i}{)O/–. The deceased was aged about 55 years
' " s.._and the'apr;i'()i0:~¢ {V103-‘&r’cti1;(iS loss of estate.
;
é
6. Ac.coz’ding,iy the appeai is aiiowed in part. im_pugned_iudg,1nent
and award is modified by awarding, Rs. Z,64,000.r’~ with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition tiii the date ofreaiisation.
(i) Respondent no. i—insurance company is directed to—depo;:ii”t’-tiie: ‘
enhanced compensation with interest within: fon1’_w’e–eksvf1*oi.n tiie_jd.at”e..
ofreceipt ofa copy ofthisjudgment.
(ii) Out oftiie enhanced COi3’iip”cfnS2’tI.i'(‘)i}i oi’Rs?*2?64,000/-,”iS0% each
with p1’opo1tionat’eiiii’:;e1’eisti-:slnaiib-e deip’o’s’i’ted in equal proportion in
favour of appe§ian.t nos. period of1′.ive years and to be
renewed for_a.nothe’r ii”/’iippeli_ant nos. I to 3 are entitled to
wi tiiéiraw i’ae.c1’i»i’ed interest period icai ly.
(iii)
iR’einaaii1i:.1ig,’eitioiiiit ofRs. I.i4,0()0/— with proportionate interest
i ii’vsE.’ia1i beii*e_.Eiea.se§_i.in:i1.f:qiual proportion in favour ofthe appellant nos. 1
6)
to 3 in11m2dia’£c}y on dCp(‘.)SiEiEI1g, ‘zhe szmuz by the resp0nden1_.._n0. I
insuranée company.
[)1’aw award accordingly:
bvv