HQTHEIflC%1COURT(MTKARNATAKA,
CHRCUTFBENCHIUTDHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 20o9_j
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE A»;S._BOPANVN1 €j» %
MFA No.21594(2oo8_
MFA N0.21595/2008 AND 2 3._596i'-2068
IN MFA N0.21594/2009 'A "
BENNEEN
THE DIVIS~I'O'NAL; COP:ITR'OL£.ER,"--*v»....
KSRTC, I>S1vISIOI~:'E~o.1?EICE%,'RAICHUR DIVISION,
RAICHUR,'~_DIST:' RAIC~H'U.R',=._ * S_
PRESENTLY VVREPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFF._IC'EF<*,...-NEKRTC,
_C3EN'i'R£_;L" OFFICE, _GULBARGA.
% ...APPELLANT
(BY__ SRI'.'R1é3l'[VI'Vv'; HQSAMANI, ADVOCATE.)
AND
. I ' SjMT".NACAMMA W/OFAKEERAPPA
"AGE. _32}YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
::ISsT: KOPPAL.
-R,/O-IUPPAR ONI, GANGAVATHI,
J
'a
".RESPONDENT
2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16/O8/2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.4I0/2007 ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 3; MACT, AT:
GANGAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION
RS.3,05,456/- TO THE PETITIONER TOGETHER W*I',I:'ItI_
THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF' 8% RA.
DATE OF' THE PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN MFA N0.21595/ 2009
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, E' =
KSRTC, DIVISION OFFICE, RAICHI_.IR.DIVISION~,...
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR;"'«. j V ~
PRESENTLY REPRESENTE'i)_AI:3Y' ~ _
THE CHIEF LAW OEF'ICER,. NEKRTC,
CENTRALI1O_FF4ICEI,v'G'LI:LBIAI§GA_I I
_ I APPELLANT
(BY SRLRAVI HOSIAI/I.AN«I,~IADVOCATE.)
1.A ._ /O.I<UPFAvvA
ACE; SQIEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
SINCEDECEASED REPRESENTED BY
* RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5.
'AIILINOAFFA S/OXANKAPPA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
I
4'
3. MANJAMMA D / O .YANKAPPA
AGE: 16 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTEID.I_I'-~._
BY HER FATHER RESPONDENT NO. 1.
4. CHIRANJIVI S /OXANKAPPA
AGE: 12 YEARS, SINCE MINOR.REPEiE'S'EI5§ETEID.4_'_3
BY HIS FATHER RESPONDENT NOFSI , VI "
5. RENUKAMMA D/O.YANKAPPA'~« I'~.. » ', 1
AGE: 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED A
BY HER FATHER RESPONDENT NO'.-3 Ij I
ALL ARE R/O.BHA_GERP.LTHNAfjAR«,.SINDHANUR,
NOW R /A.UPPAR ONI_,' GAN?OAVATHI*, .
DIST: KOPPAL. ,,,,, I. " ~
I _ _ . ";;:'RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.SHA'RA.NAI3ASAwA,. ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENT,.NO.;2 TO' ._
THIS MFA'..;ISgFILE'DI._U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST"=_ THE _J{}DGMENT. AND AWARD DATED
16/08/2003 p.ASSEDI'IIN*»MvC NO.409/2007 ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL 'JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 MACT, AT:
OANGAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RSA.3,*v5I.4°sQQO,'»,: TO""*--'-'H-*IE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 5
r_TOOETIIER 'NITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8%
OF THE PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN MFA I~zO.2is96/2oo9
. 4'_'fIfHEIVDIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
---._KSR'I'C, DIVISION OFFICE, RAICHUR DIVISION,
I I ~RA'ICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR,
I
5
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, GULBARGA.
(BY SRLRAVI V. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. TIMMANNA S /O.KUPPA1%INA.. _
AGE: 27' YEARS, OCC: COOALIE,
2. SMTERAMMA W/O'.'TIMMA}$IA?« Q
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC;'HOU?SEWIvF'E.AND COOLIE,
BOTH ARE Rf/O.
NOW R /A.;UPEAR Q"--NI;;_GA1\}'GTA'VATHI,
DIST:
AAAA I RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA _IS.V""AFI'LED,_'§}/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16/08/2008 PASSED 'INHMVC NO.-404/2007 ON THE
FILE OF' THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 MACT, AT:
AWARDIN G COMPENSATION OF
'RRS.1«,75,OOQ,'+A"«.TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2
T'€)GIE'1'HER:_IWITH" THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7%
PA'. FROM OF THE PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
I MFAS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
VjD:AY, TI~I.EC COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
I
'0
I-
JUDGMENT
Since all these appeals”arise_.~os4t’::’.Vvof–d.::theav”
common judgment and separate awards’:
No.404/2007, 409/2007 ands’41o/2oo’7t, these
are taken up together diSpos_etl..:()f
2) Though the appeaistrnrMmNo.21595/zoos
and 21596/ .t steps, it is
seen that _ represented by
Sri.B.Sh:aranabasava:.,’ leazjned ootlnsel in one of the
matter thpereforep’ learned counsel appears
for the;1*espon’de,nts in other appeals as well.
‘ .3) No.21595/2008 the 1st respondent
claimant is -dsjajri to have expired and the learned counsel
for the xuappuellant has filed a memo to treat the
‘rfesxpdondents No.2 to 5 who are already on record as the
t
W
legal representatives of the deceased. Memo accepted.
Appropriate endorsement to be made in the cause titl’eiF.
4) With regard to the contention in .
appeals, the appellant corporation” the
quantum of award in all the three
No.4o4-/2007 the deceased weepVie.i.mieer.i eeeeesoely’
question is with regard to the correctness or” otheriyise of
the compensation which The Tribunal
while noticing thisV’a_spec;tlof has come to the
conclusion th;atll’t«heie.VVthe absence of any
evidence Vlwith v4’4ti1e”‘income the other aspect of
the matter be assertained. Hence it has held that
the arpipropriate compensation payable would be in a
iisuirnliof.-. In a case of this nature I am of
the.V*ipeW said compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- in
viii’-«.y__re_spect ~olft. the death cannot be considered to be
eieceissive. Accordingly the compensation as awarded by
h —-.llVtlr1e’_l’5I’ribunal is affirmed.
i
5
5) With regard to the compensation awarded in
MVC No.40′)/2007 it is noticed that the deceased
aged 45 years. The age has been ascertained;frorn’_~..thie;_:u
document at Ex.P.3 which is the postmorterri~,V ”
Though a higher income had it
Tribunal, taking into consideration that therei.,;w.as nob
documentary evidence in thisiegard, the
income at Rs.100/– per income reckoned
at Rs.100/– per during. any case
cannot be he1d~e;;.o1’bita;nt¢;v Therefore when the
compensationix’Vbeen.L”awarded taking the monthly
income at other parameters have
_ been ggproperlf by the Tribunal, even the
?.1coVrr1p_ensa’tion awarded in the said case does not call for
interfe.ren’ce”,~»., ._ <. ' ' '
regard to the compensation awarded in
2007 the fact that there is amputation of
is not in dispéte since the same has been
: 'i
established before the Tribunal. The document at Ex.P.3
in the wound certificate which has been referred
the Tribunal. The claimant was aged 30 years atjthef" y
of accident. The avocation as claimed by the i'
that she was undertaking agricultural.lA.ivor,l.<" it
tailoring. No doubt there Was=._n0
evidence to establish facty.§V!4_i:lfIloyvej{erihtlfleivnclaiimants
had relied on the photegéaphs P37 and 13.9
which indicated herself avocation.
Though the ilafilbellant assailed
the nature of iconsi.dering”‘*t1f;e_same by the Tribunal, in
my View thesame is not g_eI=–ron”eous since said documents
alone y§re1’e. not Vmaterials considered. In any event
Znfithere material to dispute the claim of the
injured. T’he_refoire'” in a circumstance where her leg has
ibeen and considering that she could do
,,4.’«.”tai:lorin_g, in any event the income reckoned at Rs.l20/–
would not be a higher side. Even on that aspect
“-«ofwthe matter I see no 61350? committed by the Tribunal in
*1
awarding the compensation by reckoning the income as
done by the Tribunal. Therefore even with regard
instant case I see no reason to interfere. T
7) The learned counsel for the T’
contended that the Tribunal has~”grante’d V
interest at 8% pa. Though inthe circnrnstaniceviiii’
this Court would not have inter-fe1=ed vsiith Vthe:”_:dis,cretiion
exercised by the Tribuna1~.depen’di11g; on-.the factsef each
case, in the instant case it no reasons
have been.r–assigne’d::;;A_n_o1*.there’i-s…1:hiformity in grant of
interest as the V”av;varded 7% in one case and
8% in theiiiiotherii ziience in this regard it is
“a,ppro_pi!iat_e to rnoidifyathre award to the extent of granting
i.i’;1te.re’st ciairnants at 7% p.a. The appellant
corporationpshaili deposit the balance amount payable
é=;:r_1_d whii~evViic1;.rJing so the interest shall be caiculated at 7%
..yp§ié;..ifi’n:;.11 the cases. \£
4′.