IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD V ._
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY, 201,62 ,
BEFORE A fu@RI,
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNA«I.fPIAI~IA,.,: 7
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL ,NO.2078'6/TQOOVSVV V' ,
C/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST ARPEAL N1O«,,2o.359 '/_:2cQ8'~ =
IN MFA 20786 2008
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY --
LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OEEICE,. ' _ ~
SUJATA COMPLEX, P.I3.ROAD, IIUI'-3LI.':: .
-- I 'v.j~..__.]APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUMAN HEGDE, A-DVI)
AND:
I. SMT. SHANTAWWA; ., .
w/ GURUPADGQUDA SHIVANAGOUDAR,
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, .OC:::; ROUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDING AT PALE'~vILLA'GE,' TO. RUELI.
2. GIJRUPAD'AG,OUDA HOLIYAPPAGOUDA
VSI{--IiVANAGOUDA,R, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
-QCC;.AGRICULTURE,~R/A PALE VILLAGE, TO. HUBLI.
' "RANJEET'RI5{JUBHAl RATHOD, AGE MAJOR,
,.OC€_:_ 'O,wNER_ QF TANKER BEARING
. 'REGISTRATION NO.KA»25/A4948
A 'RESIDIN'G.AT GANESH PETH, HUBLI.
. ...RESPONDEN'I'
(BY SRI. DINESH IvI.'I<:ULI<ARNI, ADV.)
AA TRIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(E) OF MV ACT
__AGAINST THE .IUDGMENT..,.AND AWARD DATED 2.7.2008 PASSED IN
MVC' N049?/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL Ci'/IL
.IUDGE(SR.DN} AND ADDL. MACT AT HUBLI, AWARDING
(BY, SMT: SUMANV HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2)
COMPENSATION OF' RS.3,-42,000/~ WIT}-I INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF' PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA 20369 2008
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTAVVA,
W/O GURUPADAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDAR, _
AGE 42 YRS., OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,' ,
R/O PALE VILLAGE , TQ. HUBLI, I ~
DT. DHARWAD.
2. GURUPADAGOUDA, =
S/O HOLIYAPPAGOUDA sHIvANAG'O_UDAR, ' --
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,' '-
R/O PALE VILLAGE, TQ.__ HUBLI,___._ 'I
DT-- DHARWAD. '
_ APPELLANTS
(BY SR1 DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV;-}, P " -.
AND:
1. RANJEET, /O IéAJUEHA,1'IRA'P--H'O'D,
AGEIVIAJOR;.OCC-:::,I3USI.NE-SS, " '
RESIDING ATQGANESHPE'I°,_HII_ELI,
DT. DHAR'wAD.= -., I
2. THE DIVISIIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO: LTD,
SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B ROAD,
IFIJBLI; DIST. DI-IARWAD.
I " """ " ..REsPoNDENTs
« I TH1S"_'*APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST,.THE--_IIUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.7.2008 PASSED IN
MVC NO-..49G,i'2006 ON THE FILE OF' THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN]
AND ADD1, MACT, HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COIVIPENSATION AND SEEKIN ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
= COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DJ
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant in.suran_ce
company and also learned counsel for
claimants in both appeals, which arise Q.’.~it~..o’i7,t1’*ie: same
award of the Tribunal. W
2. The Motor Accident Claims’–.’f’ribuna.li.iias,allowed ._
the claim of the respondent–clairr1ants and ‘sum of
Rs.3,-42,000/w and liability on “till: appellant-
insurance company.
2 for the appellants submitted
that the case ofithei before the Tribunal was that
on,/ accident occurred when the deceased
.i Sh.anl<.ar:gouVida Shivanagoudar, who happened to be the son
0_f"i.t_h;ei"cili;ain*1air1'ts, was standing along with his friend on
PB"."Road. his friend was having 8. motor cycle and at
i that time a tanker bearing No.KA 25/A4948 came in a high
i and dashed to the boy who was standing along with
~~-his friend and the motor cycle and following the said
g 2'
motorcycle and at that time, a tanker came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the motor cyclist anéi*–.»also
to the deceased boy. The boy died on the spot
injuries. The documents produced by the
the above aspects of the case. Nojei}id'ence'l..pis toshoizvx
that both the vehicles were in motiolndwhen'
occurred. Therefore question offthpe deceasedgbeinglamplillion V
rider does not arise nor the..rquesti.on__of any'-contributory
negligence arises for consilde1'a't.i.oln,~'
6. So far as V.the.q11antum is «concerned, income
taken thehigher side because of the
admission’ madel she was able to secure the
document from the printing press as the said person was
8CqfiaiQ~tCd..t_With ‘her—–a11d therefore much importance cannot
Vbe”giy’en:ito”the–.income certificate produced at Ex.P–9. As
such,’ the has to be taken at Rs.3,000/– per month
andlaftle: deducting 50% towards personal expenses, as the
deceased happened to a bachelor and also in View of the
Court’s ruling reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the
compensation payable to the petitioners under the head of
dependency will be RS.2,7O,000(1,50OX12X15}V”.f ‘a.Dd
conventional amount given by the
Rs.30,000/– is kept in tact. The c0mpensati.or1_A’_te.Vvwetiiich tttiet ..
claimants will be entitled win bet’ R:§_.:3,s3d«,_QOQ/Q
interest. Thus, compensation gets’*–reduced.bj,fi ‘a ‘s1,17m'”of
Rs.42,000/–. To the said extetn:t;t»the appeaiks ttétiiiottazed in
part. Both the appeaiszjstandpin thevtéibeve terms.
VJJ: MFA 20786 ,/xzozors
10 /02 /2010 C/W MFA 20359/ozrorcsa H
ORDER ON FOR BE1;§Io SPOKEE§f”_TO’:: _ Q i’
Heard learned counsel for the it
When the matter is takeriup for to,
in the judgment 26 the total
compensation shall /– in place of
Rs.3,90,000 in deposit be
transferred to Tribunal.
In t–:ner¢ausje No.49?/2006 shall be
read as Mvcrrrsioaéej
a ” 3 ‘ Sdf”
….. E’. ‘