High Court Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director Ksrtc vs Kyrunnisa on 26 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Ksrtc vs Kyrunnisa on 26 March, 2008
Author: Chidananda Ullal A.S.Pachhapure
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN:3;A1,oRE
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008% %k
PRESENT ' "%  "'

T E HON*I3LE: MR.JUSTICEAAQHIDANA}§i1}.A 'i:ILIJ\§; ' ~ * 

Between:

The Manaoi

-1.: gnu .-

uhi .'efnr..._  '
-3 .,_..vw.,3.,, ._

KSRTC,

Central Gfficas,   . =

K.H.Road,=7     '
Bangalore +,5'6(3.;_:Q2'?'_.  "

Pan Pat}  ('_V1_"'fiu=-f T:--'_r§i*5:_r 'l".'H'flr'-pr 

.. Appellant

(By Sri; 1'%1'.R.Stib1%fij1.:§:1?j'..r.'fi,V. Adv. for Sri.N.K.Ra1nesh, Adv. for

app§:11ant.)"~  , 

. Anglz

-1

-  Kyfunfliéa,

A   l1ru 1+ R 1 I!"I"'C|
I I$\/\:rI '.(4|.I..I\.lL.l.L LI .1. J -I Clo,

 ..VE'.[0; late Abdul Salam.

1'/iahaboob Pasha,

 Aged about 27 yrs.,,

Qln 1911: AI'\r111. ,cu'.Q]::rrn
U, '.11 .l.l.'J.l..\.a L.'

1 ILILL LLI. I'J..1GI.£.I-S'

Mukram Pasha,
Aged about 25 yrs.,
S/0. late: Abdul Salam,

Shameernunnisa,



Aged a.bout31 yrs.,

.

‘v’v’,’e. Jaffer Hussam 85

33/0. late Abdul Salam,

5, Salma Banu,
Aged about 23 yrs., ._

I .. l\A’h’U’ .-..-.1.-.n ..
W] U. }’I(flJ1 Pflfillil. 6!:

D/0. late Abdul Salam.

i V

.. .-.. n n 1 .- 1 ‘”1 1 :3
(By S i. N.’v’.}v'{uh r’e11w;.~r.a1)pa.-,—–Atxv. for iespc-ndente. }

This MFR its i’13_Le(1″u1jder«..’;Secfic2n”‘ 173(1) of the Motor
‘.1-5-rhicles Act; 19158.8; agairist t11’e..ju-d’gm_.er1t arid award dt. 14-3-
2005 passed”‘ii__11MVC I$i’=u_.’409=/O4 on the file of the Civil Judge
{Sr.Dn.} V Ivie111’fie’r-L ‘~}”1I\i’1″;1’1£’3’I’, Kuriigal, awarding
co1n1)enea1ic1’_1 0i?:3RS.5,8’3+O9G!.r. aivitli i11t.e1’est at 6% 13.21. from
the date of ipeiitioim, ‘ —

T1iis4’MFA._ Cain-‘A1’I3i:_1’1;«,>,’»”(;I’i for final hearing this day,
A S PAC’fiHAi?U’1k;E J, de..~Iive1’ed the f’110’w”ing:

– -T1″ ¥DG1\./IE- .T –

—- KSRTC has challenged the judgment

D1″ nfinu
. …c.. , ,,…..-.,.-.¢,

and. ~~aWm’-:1

r R e33.09e5,/- 1;

E
I
I-

I

‘I

respondelits i.e. the iegai represe11tai.ive:s oi’ ” 1e deceased

Abdtll Salaln in .’.-1 motor accident. The ‘I’ribu11al after takilig

into consideratiori the material placed on record, has awarded

the coI111;)ensatio1’1 under the following heads :

9
V
A

a} Loss of dependency Rs.4,8{‘)__,O96/’ —

b) Expenses incurred for shifting the 9 _ Z
body of the inj ured. ‘ ” He

0) Expenses incurred for e1’e1nat1’onm ; –. 9 ‘– _ ‘V . ‘
and other death ceremonies « «_ .;RS’.«_ 9.0;O’OOf- 7
(1) Loss of C0Il$NF.iL1Ill us …1e “rat ._ 1 – =
petitioner _V V 20,000: i’

e) Loss of love” and affection to__:t1’1e_ ‘
petitioners 2 to 5 at i?.s.1é3′,0OO–,’,- V
mnh « _ -. if 1

2. of learned Counsel for the
appellany ‘that. of the deceased assessed at

Rs.5.,00Q/–iis.:io11Vithei’-hiéher side and that t_he compensation

“oni’i’he *o’the1′.ét1eads is also I1’lOl’6 than reasonable.

3.. i ItVis’.’-feiesimlt. to note that the deceased was doing timber

business and Ex.P.8 is the document produced to prove his

V” mill t.o prove the income of the deceased who was aged

about. 50 years at the time of the accident. It is to be noted

that, he was looking after a big family consisting of his wife,

I
Z

<1':-

claimant No.1 and four children, claimants No. 2 In that
View of the matter, as regards the income o_f~ti1eu~ is

concerned, we “lo 11-1: Link 1:…-9.- .11-3 is on

U}
CL

L116 Lngltiii’
funeral expenses, loss of Veoiisolitiuhi
affection, appears to be on Itfiis relevant to
note that the c1ecease§i:1_’_”g.,:al’S anicluclaimant No.1,

34, U0 and 22 years

r at c vex 7_’V111f:iiat.xiiev:v.. oi’ the–1i1atter, we are of the opinion
that the qua1’1t1.1iii on_Vt11eae’- is exhorbitant and it has to
be reasse_eseVc’1i-“o.a__Athe”haeis– of the material placed on record.

In our consicleretl opmikmt reasonable and just comperisation

wouffi.” as Liuier :

i __a) V For _e_;;penses; Rs. 10,000,] –

b)’ of c-e$11eo1′.;uI:1 Rs.10,0Gf)/’-

-I

‘-.6) L.os*a,oi” iove and ai’I”ection to each of the
” claimants 2 to 5 at Rs.5,000/- each _ Rs.20,000/–

4.

1111
1

e Tribtnnal has not awarded any compensation for
‘loss of estate’. We think it just and proper to award an

aJ:nount of Rs.5,000/- on this head. In the circumstances,

c,
‘7

e. Bu ‘S reganis fjvconipeI1sationw.:. the I

. ‘9.

E1

the claimants are entitled to the amount of compensation

enumerated as below:

a) Loss of dependency

fiboldy of the injured. ‘ V; – it

c) Expenses incurred for c1’e1.n”a.tion _ ~ _ ”
and other death ceremonie’S,_’i’ _ ‘ — “Rs; 10,000/–

(1) Loss of consortium ._tl1ei_: ‘ :« .__ ‘ ‘- . . %

petitioner Rs. 10,000/’ —

e} Loss of love _aITectio1’i::to”t1.ifeV_

petitioners 2 5 at 5,000.,’ i ” –
each. i ‘ V ‘ ” ‘ ‘ Rs. 20,000]-

–_.._._.u….–.——-.—-n-…—__.._..–_—-

—.-_-p…—-_-a-.—.._–..-___——–

l-I-..-.

” V JQLCTICC, un» 3. pun: 13 u.l.lG\i’ u ”1

pun

:

.-1
CL

is reduced from Rs.5,83,096/- to

If?§s.5,28,096/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of

petition till its payment. Award is modified accordingly.

é
fit
I)L~/

6. During the course of argument, it was poixitecl out. that
ceftain amount had been deposited in ._in the
name of the claimant No. 1. We ‘h_1er«? 3_,%”-the

up… up ; .I.I..|. \.r\..r.|v 1.I.JI|.a._y

m-Lmnt in depn if m V 1% dis.,ursc{E ~,t<}_l'1éI" €;'3p1:2'tm£".~if'*ij

is made for the same.