R "§»«iAN:},fig;,c§IRE. 5:43 001.
2 4i<..;D§"<3E.(§RGE 3/0 K.M.DALLY,
H 'v1s§AN's compomm ROAD,
MIME RAMESH W/C) JARAPPA POOJARY,
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGA:,t:'é§:_V
DATED THES THE 7th DAY OF JULY 209:3-~ I A'
PRESENT:
THE fi{}N'BLE MR'S.JUS'I'ICE (:14; E;wE;v!§"' _
AND _ 'Z.
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I'iCE_K.N.KES§r{AVAN~éiRAYAN)fX
M.F.A.No.80g2"%«J:"2.0o3 (rvI.vj'~
BETWEEN: _ _ '
THE mv1szc:NAL c0rméO;;LE'R%
SFATE ROAD TRA=NSP{)R-'F-C§)RPQ'RATiQfi',~,"
sHAN'm:NAGAsz,a %
KEZNGAI. HANi-_§Mg¥;NTH£ \'IAf§l i§0;$.'13., '
BANGALORE---»;"ii6G"()2?."-,j:--..__ "APPELLANT
(By s1i;R'4V.;;EA'; BOUT 57 YEARS
..19g._5;39~0;v LINE CORNER,
PANIJESHWARA CROSS ROAD,
» A AGE}? ABOUT 56 YEARS,
A 'T LNEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY TEMPLE
MADIKERI.
R.NC).23, VISi~¥WA KANNADA SAMMELANA
VINOBA ROAD, MYSORE.
W
2. Respondent No.1 herein filed elaim petitiege, in
MVC No.35/98 seeking compensation of Rt”-3.6,80,9:{}iO:]j–.Vj:fer
the death of her son who said ta have dieei: in
vehicle accident that OCC’i.}1′.’I’f3d 4v.43G:.’4p.nx.,f«.ei2.
4.7.1997 at Valmiki Read
Read, Mysore. According .e1aiei:a.:1t, ,erz_: “date of V
the accident, her seI;:…aged.e-**a’ee11t years ..’s«i:?he was
working as an Artist, rider on e
Zoena bearing aleng with
his friend §{?nen%SRTC bus bearing
Registi?Ye,tiQex35 easheci against the said
1002131. Ienimediatelf eccident, he was taken to the
£eIes;;§i%:’a1,.where..I}eeue«3um’eed to the injurries on 5.7.199′?.
‘A “-appellant herein upon service of notice of
before the Tribunal and contested the
V . . ‘i’§e Tribenal on assessment of the era} and
“Ldee>e_e3ei:tary evidence elaeed by the parties, by the
.’ j”x.t(igEe11¥; under appeal held that the accident was se}.e¥.y
T “‘c§”€;e to the negiigenee of the bus driver. in the light ef the
evidence of the claimant with regard to the avecatien ef
@
the deceased and in View of the fact that the deceased was
a bachelor, and having regard te the high academic
qualification of the deceased, the Tribunal .
document produced would prove, _that_–‘”dece’ase’d twee d”
earlling Rs.8,000/- per month.
took the monthly income o’i’dV_t’ae deceased AR._s,.5,O£3)()./-
per month and thereafter the,_f:§_%fj1§t1;;a1 50%
of the znonthly _ expenditure of
the deceased ‘eseesseti”‘:.–f§ee tfdependezzcy at
Rs.2,5{)G/ per annum. The
Tribunal age’ ‘of the claimant, applied
mu1tip1ie1=.,_ef,, was shown to be aged
abotgt years 01?, that basis, assessed the total loss
at ‘fis.3,60,0{)0/«. To this amount, the
has added a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical
expe-gases,’ -k~s%.2o,oeo/- towards trazispertation of dead
dftzrieral and other incidental expenses; Rs.5,000/~
*tewa1’ds Iove and affection. Thus, in all, the Tribunal has
-»vas:varded a sum of Rs.3,9O,OO()/-.
&.
%%%%%
awarded by the Tribunal, we see no ground ‘:0 interfere
with the award of the Tribunal towards _4
dependency. The appropriate multiplier has .
by the Tribunal having regard to tlieage _o’f”t’1″1e”‘:cleiman:.i K ”
The Tribunal has not committedv’»3.ny;”‘efi”of».if1~
the lose of eiependency at”iiRs,.3,6C)’,’€Ji(§E)[–.*’V:iiA’iTl1e.”Vas:£?art1
passed by 1:116: ‘f’ribuneil L1n::1e;f_’_i: et1:’_1’e1i*__v heaids: eieeppviéilso just
and reasonable and {S_»(;;)peVp’f:.}j>i’i_titerfere11ee with
the quantum ef<cemp:e3:'1s..af;ip:£V1V'* the Tribunal
under any iitili1:e"VVi11atter, we see :10
merit this is liable to be éismissed.
Acgergliiflglffi fheéppeal is dismissed. No order as
sdl-ii
judge
/ sdlé.
Judge
RS/’ 360′?O8fO609(}8*