IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 06"" DAY OF GE QEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE IIOI\I'BLE MR. JUSTICE LNARAYANA SWAMIE' 'V,
M.F.A.NO.ll524 OF 2007 (MV)
ciw .
M.F.A.NO.11523 OF 2(}G7--(MV--) ;
M.F.A.NO.11524/20O7 {MW
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD._., .
D.O No.10, 213-217, II FLOOR,' _ ,
II MAIN, 4TH CROSS, CI~1:AMARAJPET,.'" I
BANGALORE- I8, NOw~REPRESENTED By
ITS REGIONAL I ._ .
ORIENTAL INSURAI~IC'E'fCO; - ' '
REGIONAL OFFECE, I\IO.44/45--,,_LE..O
SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESI.OEN_CY ROAD
CROSS, BANGALORE-550 02.5.
5 T' ' ~ :APPELLANT
(BI*'SRI.A}.I§I;IIRISI~1,NA SWAIvIY, ADV.)
ANT}; 3
E E' SAT'I»II{ANAI?A3kAI\fAp1>A,
S/O. L'ATEv--..GOPALAPPA,
NOW AGE-DABOUT 54 YEARS
* SMT.vEI%RIGYAMMA,
WIRE 'O-R SATHYANARAYANAPPA,
__fN'Ow AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
I , I3OTI~I R/O. CHIKKHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
'TIIONDEBHAVI HOBLI.
A A " GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT. g<'
\
3. TDASAPPA. AGE: MAJOR.
R/O. #27. KUMARA PARK WEST.
NEAR SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE.
BANGALORE.
4. SMTRADHAMMA.
VVIFE OF LATE MUNIRAJU,
NOW AG-ED ABOUT 3}. YEARS
5. KUM CHYTANYA.
D/O LATE MUNIRAJU.
NOW AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS.
RESPONDENT No.5 SINCE..IvIINOE--------
REPRESENTED BY THEIR A. 5
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER * __
THE 4'I'H RESPONDENT '
BOTH R/O. BANDAT<LAIIAI;LI."'V. -
THONDEBHAVI A '
GOWRIBIDANUR 'I »
KOLAR DIS'I'RICT..j " . '
.... '=:;,_ _ " ._ ' :RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1.PUT'1fASIDDAPPA.7fADV;FOR R_1»2,
SRI.PRAKASH.T.HE1i3BAR_, 'ADV. FOR R3)
MFA FILED U"/S -1 73(1) 'OE' ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD D"ATED;_j.27*,o1~~-.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO.
7704/2004;ON,THETILE 01' THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, ..IjyIEIx_I.BER. MACTIEIETROPOLITIAN AREA, BANGALORE
(SCCH No.9}. "AWAIIDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,00,000/--
WITH 'INTEREST@'B%--- PA. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
EEALISATIOIN;-I
O' 'IvL_HMV;1?._A.NO."}..1523/23i€5(§7 {MVJ
'ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD..
'- jD,O~NO;'1o, 213-217, 11 FLOOR.
If NEAINI_34'm CROSS, CHAMARAJPET.
. 2' I . .I3A1\IGAI.ORE~ 18, NOW REPRESENTED BY
I REGIONAL MANAG ER.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE. No.44/45, LEO
BEARING NO;'1{_A5O4/AA-2727)
(BY SRI.I_AW._ MENS COMPANY FOR R1,
SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD
CROSS, BANCrALORE--56O 025.
: APPELLANT
{BY SRl.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMTRADHAMMA,
WIFE OF' LATE MUNIRAJU.
NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. MASTER SUMAN RAJ,
S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU.
NOW AGED ABOUT 1 1 YEARS
3. KUM CHYTANYA.
D/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
NOW AGED ABOUT SYEAR-S V.
RESPONDENT NO.2 <31 3 HEREIN.' I V
SINCCE MINORS REPRESENT_ED'B'?7
THEIR NATURAL_[1VIOT{iE1?£
THE 181' R.ESPO1\IDEN'I"§V HEREIN. _
ALL C/O R_AM_f1KRISI=1NEG0WDA'. -
NOS. 147 &'-148, N PHASE;..1'3fI?R.BLOcK.
SIRAKI APARTMENT;-- YELAHANIM NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE. " '
4,:"'E.DAS.ARRA,:AGE: MAJOR;
'v.R/O«..'#27. I~:_UI\/IARA PARK WEST.
NEAR TSI.IERAMANYA TEMPLE.
BANGAL.OPYE*«[VOWNER OF LORRY
; RESRONDENTS
_SRI.PRA-KASH TREBBAR, ADV. FOR R4)
0."MEA..i-'FILED U/S 173(1) OF' MV ACT AGAINST THE
'JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 27.01.2007 PASSED IN MVC
IG""NQ_.3:894/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF
"SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, MATROPOLITIAN AREA,
BANGALORE [SCCI*I.NO.9}. AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.9,'74,035/~ WI'I'II INTEREST @ 6% PA. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL I2EAI.ISAT?N.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS_..__DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the insurance”‘c_ornpat1y~
aggrieved of the judgment and awflard passed
tribunal on the two claim petitionsvtiled wife
along with the children sepaafate1yf.h E V
2. The only. the”_–ins’u1?aVnce company is
that the tribunal allowing
future prosp’ectn_s as the deceased was
working pa pri’.Iat’eGestabhshdment and the claimants have
materizdvto prove that the employment was
perinanent ;1a+_fu.r_e.: ..
V -V 3. The “learned counsels for the claimants submit
.1 *t:h’e’c1ai1nants are the parents, widow and children of the
They have produced, salary certificate and
at Ex.P9 8: P10 which indicate that for the last 8
years, the deceased was in continuous employment and
f
6
salary (without provision for annual increments etc.,), the
Courts will/shall take only actual income at the time of
death. A departure from this should be made on1yvV.ilir’;~.g.1re
and exceptional cases involving special circurnstan(:’es;–.’ -. ;.
5. In the instant case, no
certificate and Ex.Pl0 is the salary they at
employer. They disclose that since l9f96fthe lwas
Working as a process control operato’r.iand getting H R
A. C C A and other allovvanlcesllp {fl’he’y;themselves are not
sufficient was in a permanent
employmentfiiif “person either the employer
or the co-e”rI_1p1oyeeV_beiri’g in the case. It also cannot
“that Vllfthléfvdeceased was on a temporary
emplloyrnent.lvvitlioutkany increments etc., only on the basis
_A”‘of the con__tenti~on}’raised by the insurance company. However,
thexfacts arid circumstances of the case, the claimants are
*.__*~n¢:_ to benefit of future prospectus in the absence of
fmaterials in that regard.
‘7
6. The salary of the deceased at Rs.6103/– is not in
dispute. But so far as the deduction at one~third, Consiedering
the fact that there are five dependents, even if
excluded, there will be four and in that View
only one-fourth has to be deducted
deceased was aged 35 years and the
would be 16 and not 15 as is adoptve’d:by_ the claims tribunal.
7. Hence the Cale.u’lMatic–in of dependency
would be Rs.4577.25,x 12 1: as_}3,’k81,8′:%’2.–;{)0. Under the
Vgranted Rs.50,000/~ as
against Rs.9l3;():00k Tribunal. . Therefore, the
claimants.’ -V arek total compensation of
i’11.’plaeeV”o’fll3{s.11,74,O35.00, which shall carry
6% ‘ llritierelislt. if 11′ j 2 1’
8.l ‘iliew of the matter, the appeals filed by the
‘4″-:l1’iS§l1VI”‘r1HC€ levofnpany are partly allowed. The amount in
p”-«deplos.ii.’ i.s_?di1’ected to be transmitted to claims tribunal.
The claims tribunal has apportioned the
lid”-«:le’o«rnpensation at Rs.2,O0,0OO/M to the parents and rest of the
” x
amount to the wife and Children of the deceased with
proportionate interest. The deposits to be made in the narne
of the children is also retained as it is.
akd*