IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 15" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.
Miscellaneous First Appeal
Miscellaneous First Appea.l__NO.10943/2A0'O7""..: "
IN MFA N0.-4831/2007 I _ D"
BEI WEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER... .,
NATIONAL INSURANCE ;CO.'L'r2:>..'
OPP KADMVI FACTIBRY .L1NGA'SUGUR ROAD
RAICHUR , R1'«:P'.4..B':r-1';1fS' 1.1113: *DE'PU='EY_ »
MANAGER NAT:i_ONAL c:O'.LTD .,
BANGAI.O--RE REGIQNAL NOFFCICE-A SUBHARAM
COMPLEX, ND();D.Ai_4-4}, -BANGALORE 1
A ...APPELLANT
{BY SR1. SANJAY M, JO_SHl;ADVOCATE)
1. SRI'NARASIM.E%IALU
'S/Ca'GOPAJ,GOU_1:JjA
AG ED__MAsO€'_J_T_ 34' 'YRS
» R/ATNADIKAITUR OF' KURNOOL DIST
. NOW £2/AT KULSUMBI COLONY
«,_'RA1CHUR,_ 1
.
that occurred on 04.05.2006. This appeal against the
Judgment: passed by the learned MACT :31: Fast Tracl{‘»lII.
Raichur in MVC.No.249/06 seeking €I]l’lElI1(3’*;,’j1Ti9.:.’«”121t…’_’:’llflgif
Compensation. MFA.No.-4831/2007 is filed by_.th.e_:’:{.nVs’i.iranee”
Company for reduction of compensation. .0
convenience the parties would .be..__ referred to th_ey_l§are
referred in the tribunal. Since both”th_e a”p.peals0 aris~en out of
the same Judgment 8: Anrard 0′ been clubbed
together, heard and of Judgment.
2. I have liieaifd learne’d._Vt;.ou-ns-el for the claimants
and the 1eari”ied–..Aeoun:-gt-:1 f0.r’=.the'”Insurance Company and
perused the records. . of accident involving the
motor Cycle bearing and its Coverage of
irifsnrancei the Insurance Company is not in dispute.
_ ougtset it is the argument of the learned
.,.,,3OVunS€l the. ap.pe11ant/ Insurance Company that in View of
*-0«the___”decisioiipin Civil Appeal No.17’02/07 disposed on
7>l<v'/
30.03.2007 in the ease of Manjuri Bera V/s Oriental
Insurance Co.. Ltd. right: to file a Claim apphcation is to be
Considered in the background of the right to entit1emVer.1t3of
Compensation.
4. Per contra the learned counsel» appeai’vin:gV,fotr
Claimants relying upon the decision,’
rendered in Special Leave Petit io~r; (CA1″v’iV:1}
contend that brothers and sistersV_of:the’i.deCeasedHcan claim
compensation ” justified in
awarding and sisters of the
deceased. No.1702/2007 it is shown
to be rendered the of the Apex Court whereas
sn.bsequei15t reported in Special Leave
Peti’tjoi10′(‘CiVi1]4″Ne,2’8.02/ 1987 it is rendered by the Division
–V 5. dispute that on 04.05.2008 around 10:15
.1-thevtttdeceased was going by walk by the side of the
%i~'”
due to the negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle in
question and having found that the rider was having a valid
driving licence. awarded compensation of }Rs.2,1(*3V,lLl’)_(:’)”O_/-
towards ‘loss of dependency’ [Rs.8O – 50% == Rs.4()_. .
-= Rs.14,400 X 15 (multiplier) = Rag,»_16,0_O()/-~:}:;’_wvfthisld
amount the tribunal awarded another
under other conventional heads’_v’Thusl,’*.gn all l’the~.i._t’ra,inable
awarded Rs.2,64,000/~» per annum.
According to out of the
income of the since deceased
Narasamma:v’hlniafrie5dV husband about 15
years back living with them and she
was contrigbtitingliltollthe rnailntenance of the family. At the
of petitioners who are taken care
and spent p1anioun,t-..t”owards medical expenses, due to the
V”,1.nunti.mely’death they have suffered monetary loss as well as
.lpa11dac_.affection and loss of estate, filed this appeal for
V’ ‘ — . e11han’c_en1e–nt of compensation.
lé”
i0
the family and she was a member of the family. It is
submitted that the so caiied husband of the deceased
deserted her and never turned up to file the petition andiitayis
the claimants who have performed the funerals
Care of the deceased after the accident, as u ‘w
petition is maintainable. It is specificially lstyated li1’i.f..tl’ie_Al
affidavit that during the year 2066 the deeeased7\i\%Aas’ve_arning
Rs.100/~ per day doing it cannot be
termed as exorbita}at’::ar1–d income to be
taken and also income was hardly
spent by and much less there
was no In the circumstances, the
tribunal ought 2/3″? towards dependency
m;§_t§’aa_or contended that the Tribunal
the dependency at 50%.
9. “i?.er learned counsel appearing for the
l Company submitted that in a case of brothers and
.Tl?VV’l'”l(): are married, they cannot again say that deceased
K’
V’
I”?
was not in picture and when affidavit. has been filed by way of
evidence by the claimants to the effect that deceased had
deserted her husband 15 years back and she was residing
with claimants as one of the family member and this aspect of
the matter has been not challenged by rebuttal
cannot be said that the petitioners are not the
and also the claim petition is not ma’in£;a:fi’ap1e. l
12. So far as the deperidexjgv it is not in
dispute that sisters of the
deceased the claimants were
also the earning the family. What is to be
considered is was earning and whether
thewearnirrgifyl some other purpose or towards
mai’ntena’r1cye–»._ofi thefamily. When admittedly claimants are
toWb”cl the’.l–V’TbrotVhers and sisters of the deceased and
_fl1eq1ia1.ly the earnings of the deceased was contributing to the
of the family, that contribution necessarily
. lfihave been made towards the maintenance of the
V,
2. Appeal filed by the Insurance Comparigia.
is dismissed.
3. The amount awarded by the .
in a sum of Rs.2,64,C}O0/4′ is
to Rs.3,36.000/~ with”ci.ni»'<iRést
from the date of doe-titionA'ti1VI the
realisation.
4. The amount’
trans_ferredA’to..the ‘tri’f:»i’1nxé11V
”
5,__ ifigpiaid within three
_ out of which 50%
i in fixed deposit in
a,tio.na1~i’2ed Bank for a period of 5
years. :I_’i_1_e.interest accrued thereon will
proportionately distributed to the
‘Ciairriants.
Sa/;
EUDQE