{K THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
pawn mrs ms 27'"! mm or mnnunyé.
BEFORE m_ % V %
Tan HOWBLE MR. JUBTIVBAE .1j.s.:'
!V£.F.A. VA
BEIWEEN: _ " " '
Tag BRANCH MANAGE}§_"'j%'-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
DAVANAGERE3 " "
REP. B:Y":*i';e; £§f1:v1S'::i::I~z.t§L«.z§mN3:§':a":1é
DC},BE:I:,LAE?Y '--".V--«».__» M %
~ % _ APPELLANT
(BY SR1A.M';*'.VENK23T§:2SH~;"SR¥ 13.3. RAJU AM)
331 SUDARSHAN', Am/s.)
I 'S§é1"'r§VA§:;J1,:~NDAPPA
. "Vs/0 'RENGAPPA
AQ-ED ABOUI' 5? YEARS
RUDRAMMA
" * W/C} NANJUNIDAPPA
V' 2 _;AGE1:) ABOUT' 52 YEARS
SMT. NAGAVENI
W] O MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
J7
4 SANDEEP
S/O LATE MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 7 "YEARS
5 NANDINI
D/O LATE MANJU NATHA
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS'; _
4 AND 5 ARE MINORS REP...V'BY
MOTHER RESPONDENT N-s.;'5-_
ALL ARE RESIDiNG=AT MAHANAND1.
KOTTAM, NEAR CANAL, "N1%'RD 1~:;§..13-.. _
BELLARY -- _ A '
' RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Y LA§<si»;4Mfi§AN*r§; .f.?1'?a1:)E}Y',:.'('\.3')\:"."'VIV+'V'OR R1 TO R5)
Ti?iIS"APPEAE.} "}S t:~*11 ;Ep" :1/s 173(1) op' MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMEANT ANDA"AW'A_RiV) 1'.)A'I'E1f):O9.01.2()08 PASSED IN
we Ne, 663/'Z005 'o_N'~»THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-II,
BELi,.{%I?'i'}. AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,96,ooo/--
'--.iNTi€',.f?:E$3*§' Afsj 6% 'p;A;'PR0M THE DATE ore' PETITION TILL
RE'ALISA'£'.IGN;'--
'' COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
"E'HE'_'COUR'If_ f}.E£..EVERED THE F(}LLOWiNG:
i
I?
JUDGMENT
The appellanvinsurance Company is beffife
assaiiing the judgment and aware} passed in ‘
insofar as the quantum awarded Es
Tflbuna}, Be1]ary(for short __
2. Beard the learned f()::”._ ‘the p}arfies and
perused the appeal
” . the quantum of compensation
gzanted, ~. for the appelIant–Insurance
‘~ would” ‘éoaaad that the amount awarded towards
‘less; of degfieftdency’ is on the higher side in View of the income
of Vbeing taken at Rs.4,500/- per month, though
I110 evidence was produced before the MACE’. It is
x V’ “..:ag2a3:1;tezn1’cIee’I that in the absence of documentary evidence, the
income, which is reasonable shouid have been taken
” the MAC!’ and the present income taken is without any
basis whatsoever.
J?
:99
4. The learned Counsel fo;hflf;_e howeyei’ .
sought to justify the award by conte11c7;’i11g: has
noticed the number of dependents _g3t11re L’
business as stated. Therefore, noticing that
even in respect of an wages would be
taken around Rs._3,000/_~.. in the instant
case, since the ‘\s;§,si§g§.A:d’C.:3_5:’iEt:§gv’:’V.1’$i1:”;iii1″xesS, the MAUI’ was
justified in £54,500; — per month.
5. dim’ the 1t«:gVh5+;I1tj'<,»:£*'»r.i';:'.-:–.1 contenfioixs, a perusal of the
judgment passett by would indicate that the award of
V' «–eemf§e'hs;n::ionA. undefifiead of 'loss of dependency' has been
MACT While answering issue No.4. With
regaaniiddto ineome, the MAC!' has noticed that the deceased
'teas a man aged about 30 years and he was nmning a
Knfaiiaéshop at Hanagai and it was the say of the claimants
ne was earning Rs.8,{)OO/- per month fmm the said
Webusizxess. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidence
relating to income, the MACT has not only noticed the national
J
V!
income that would be considered in such cases,i'Mb'ut.'_'ha_s
referred to a éecision rexidexed in the of
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. —-vs-I:'iSAi:'~I:.(4}AA1§Z1Eu'FA':4.SH,{R?§flia'§§fD
OTHERS ~2005(2)'1'AC 551 (zéugjab &.}%e.ryan.a)"'e'e:j¢zg;:£ing_:'; téiitziiee.
principle of reckoning the notioiiaiiinoome 'ioA_VV:s1ichi'cases. On
comparison of all the MACK' was
of the View that in the that the
deceased was be desirable to
I'€3CkOI1 the month.
flonecessaxy to notice that the
accident hoici-. year 2004 and during the said
_ an was the modest income. That apart,
five dependants who are the claimants and
a young wife and two smali children aged
-vaboutti Even on this front, if it is to be noticed
favvmfli ily of this size was to be maintain’ ed, since’ the
.’_j_deee{ised was young man of 30 years, the said income as
–_”Ieckoned by the MAC!’ is reasonable and the same does not
it it “call for interference.
i
F.
‘3’. Even otherwise, it is noticed that on .’ ‘.lg;__tv’11c=:r
conventicmai heads, the amount awarded is _91:; ihe’ !(§w::r- sicizz
Therefore, taking ova}: all View that i
years oid male, the compensaftign a§.é”afli>’za1dcdj
just and pmpcr, I see no rcafiexgfta ififfiI’fi_i’i?3– award
passed by the MACXI’.
Accoraigg1yj,[A Vme a;§p¢é1′,.beigg.%’;;gy¢;¢;%« .51′ merit is disposed
ofwithzvivcf’ #§if1éY:.QS _ .
_In_V ” of thfm appeal, the appellant
gg, (;g;3pan”3%” ” anal} ” deposit the entire amount after
if any aheady depositm.
Sd/”.-
Judge