BETWEEE
TH
=--.A..'r.A.zr...,A
um uorrnnn MR. auasmcn: mm: .
nu-.5. no. 503669
fllilf
M,__..._-F-'--L4§2ta2_<;Ia.._N..._7%1_#i22m%
E MANAg:::4:::§I_)11'éEc1'0ia
HEAD O_Fi'~"IC3Ei1,(3ENTRAL,0Fi-'RUE. .
HRH RDA , 3¥"1NG£!.OR.E.1" " '-
mm? BY.
Ca.)
V(')FEivQEE§
i<'ESFON'DENT
(IN MI'-'A.CROB 81/06)
T*.flAHFu'fiF(}ZUR RAHAMAN
Sfi0LATE A.S. MOI-IAMMED YOUSUFF
'S-TYEARS, R] 0 SUBHASHWAGAR,
}_BlLAGOLE, MUDIGERE
H RAH.A_M__'I'H KUBRA DEAD
FARZA A MUSHTAR
D10 MAHAFFOZUR RAHAMAN
AGED ABGUT -'23 YEARS
RIO SUBHASHNAGAR, A
BILAGOLA, MUWGERE,
ta}
4 FARIDA NAUSHEER
D [O MAHAFFGZUR RAHAMEN
AGED ABOUT '26 YEARS A
12/0 SUBHASHNAGAR,
BILAGOLA, MUDIGERE
(II
'J'AlA',<'.'.'[-II-i",Xa",
FAKE .,,.........,...
S10 MAHAFFOZUR RAHAMAN
AGED ABOUT E5 ':'EARS.
RIO suEHAsE1~mGA.R, I ~
BILAGOLA, _
' A ' . RESPONDENTS
_ _ -..;_C§ROSS-OBJECFORS
v MF’A.CROB81_I06)
(RESPONI3ENT’S,.3 ‘ro;5k_ AREEROSS
aw v ‘PD-4 IE5′)
(By E1 65 3-5 1
W313 MEE’jDAFIELEDE~EEiIis 173(1) OF’ MW ACT’ AGAINST’
THE au–DEME’Ej_r AND AWARD DATED: 5.3.2005 PASSED IN
MVC NC)’;347[ on THE FILE 01? THE CIVIL JUDGE
{s;{E;DN,) CHIKMAGALUR, AWARDING
-t.::D1»:EENsATIoN——~EE Rs.2,72,ooo/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
, =._P.A. ‘ ,AED«.._ DIRECTEE-3-. THE APPELLANT To
TDEPQSITTHE SAME.
T.i7Ii_$7’IIdFA.CROB IN MFA 5030/05 FILED UIORDER
4.1 FIULE’ 22 OF’ CFC, AGAIN’3’I’ ‘T’I-IE JUDGMENT’ AND
AWARD DATED 513/2005 PASSED IN MVC NO.347I 1999
_ [ON ‘THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MEMBER,
* V , CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
‘ = –PE.”I’I’I’lON FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
} ENHAN{‘.-EI’v’IEN’P F COMPF-.NSAT.ON.
‘THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH CRGSS G%EwIGN,
COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE CROUIRT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
aunensnr
The Managm g Director of »i«:sR’rc;,J ” ‘seéz;-ggzéta .13; _
judgment and award dated 5-3-§€)0″$’_A_’h1’tvM’.V.
of the Motor Accident Clannsfzjbunsl :(1ex_shc19t1._fiu1A(Ii”), dues’
pmferred this appeal, _*Re’spcmdcntsV_ 1} to 5, the
before **:e,e’:z:=.-3. cm-ss c_.j-..1.i¢;m_.,
for enhancement of campensstien.
No.KA-1&?.]’M-S4~14′._succumbed to fatal “-“jtn-“‘s. The
it ‘ci”-.._t.l_1e deceased namely the parents, two
‘ sisters and a brother in his teens claimed
” of Rs. 18,00.000/- by invoking Section 166 of
the Vehicles Act, 1988, arraigning the appellant as
n ‘ L-puartj?–Respondent No.2 who entered appearance. and
resisted the claim by filing statement of objections. The
l’.”.AL ‘1’, in the 3,21!-,z.===.ise …f the ple.sdi_ngs of parties, framed
issues, ieccffied the iie;’n”»si’®r. cf E I.-.’it.=1.esses £9.
(
cxainiunus, marked five dwuzz-..en*.e as uxhzhzte .?-..1~- tn P-A,
while for the Iespondents. the depositicne ckij.-“er.
The mar, having regard to the ‘ gm. : the *
evidence both oral and dccun1ent:’aL1jV_3’r’,” _
negligence to the driver of bne to tlzge appellant
and awarded Rs.2,7ft2!_;t3!)0 atvt3′}’tt- per annum
as compensation by and award.
h-“wing re”ard .. t..e Wylie-e
mote. ‘cement. Exhibit P-1, the police notice
EVxl;u1″bitt’P-2′ the oral testimony of the eye
nnxne-hiubarak examined as PW-2, an occupant
V cfeA;Eat.the time of accident, whose cross examination
.’ A V any incriminating statement so as to disbelieve .
the Veafictence, while not accepting the oral testimony of RW1
AA ‘tin-;:.2r.>111.e1.i. a £n1_-_i_ng of nefience on the part of the driver of
th” has belcnfig m the apm!1…..-i Ne e.–_.pi_;i_n -be
4. Learned counsel for the appellant ”
MACT was not just1fied’ in reckoning ‘ f
as the income of the deceased
income towards persona1″e§cpenses,’- ios of
dependency.
5. Per contra, cross-objectors
contends in reckoning
Rs.3,000;r; dncome but ought to have
the light of the evidence
of the emp1¢)§rei€”‘!flnssain_ exn..__min..ed as PW-3 an.
and counsel hastens to add that the award
~_ of Rs.3,000/– towaxds loss of love and
ahffectiondnlder the conventional head is misefly, while not
A. compensation for loss to estate amounts to denial
A’ neendddrjdsdee. Lastly it is contended that the deduction of yard
of the income towards yersonal expenses was justified since
the deceased left behind 1.a__ ag__ fat…..r, a methe. who dim.
C3′:
fact that Mudigele Town, not ”
facilities there was no
huge amounts towards his expe
u*.x ‘___.:l
6. It is no donbte’tr’uef’;’t’iét1at”‘? so cianueu to ‘o
e the
owner-cumfd_i:’iver ofi that the deceased
earned _–J. as a driver of the
say of PW-3, no
the income of the deceased was
to establish that PW3 was the
Vofkneir of a tiiax when entrusted to the deceased to be
A »_used on “hire es-….ed. Rs;-300 — t- Rs,4(_)0[- per day is not
In u: t ‘vie”‘ ‘1’ ll: us… .he e’..’i..er-.w of PW3
‘is not” eeiiable, is not ieliabie as it is not in the direction of
_ _estabi’ishing the income of Rs.7,000/- per month the
‘ In my opinion, the MACI’ was fully justified in
reckoning Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the
deceased. This Court; in BMT. GULLAHMA 6 AND’?-{ER
WK
-z
v-‘ .w.-“‘.’ W cII-Ii’I’ . CCTQC . ” V ”
-4 r—- A ____ _ _-_…. _-…:_ –…………. :_; v. ….Q …..;….
if” ” 111 the ‘ st: of uummimd pcztsuun-*’1__ ~,1 ‘ rs,
instead of 50%. This Court held:;that..infjv1espeet~oi’Baeheloirs ‘
living in cities where thereeaafe many diversiysiis. sfiendiligs,
money but not so in a tshexe the
opportunity of spendiiig. mo_;iie$r ‘be much less,
considered deducfionnfv expenses as
appmpxriate; w.te_£ia1i)ply the very same
M ii i 1 V i _e ___s_ sopriately in the
‘l”‘ow1i3nti1eI*e iiaciiiizies are not to ‘ ose
in huge {rifles Admittedly, the deceased left
vtsther and two unmarried sisters and being
i the ‘e.1d’cs’t. in the family, shouldered the burden of not
i’ . hdnly the family but also to ensure the marriage
iyeunge-r sisters. In the that situation, there was
it jziustjiication for the MAC!’ to have deducted 1/3″‘ of the
inc-“cine of the dz-,…..aw.. t.t:n.=-.rs.:rd.s persnn..1 exnmsex instead
..—-.–. _r_*—- —-; -_..—
23 Ni
– H—–~——1-~~ –~»«—— , J) \
‘”1L1i2ooc1<AR:1§a
material to establish the ag* 'f th" father.a:–o ®V'…'..1e date
of accident and death. NeifeIti,jue'1ejoo;–t_ 15..-15,___+I"i_y '
guesswork, assumed the age of the"father of as
55 to apply multiplier 1 1. not
call for interference.' .,
3. ‘l’he_MA_Cl’, towards loss of
love . This Court
has_ that awald under the
oonventiuitallltkteiadfibldflllifiog pot be a taken but Ietlect time,
space, cost of living, etc. In my opinion
in and circumstances of this case, award of
‘A ‘ . 3 to-.-.r……s 1.5-. ,f __\.re and affection cannot but be
io._’ne.ju.-at “*6 reasombk ….””d is uwwm’-zdingly at.n.n.=-_n_1.ed.
it .. ‘The MACT did not award compensation towards loss
it ll 1;.’ eatate, a permissible head of damage. The appellants are
ammm,» a=.-am.-:4. 1o,ooo:- under the said head of
‘ff
datnage. ‘ MK
9
10. In the result; the appeal filed
dismiaaed -.-.’._….’~”- the £33-€.i1.|}31.’At’|’.l:.i1.1!’_l am
the ilnpugiied j”d–*”1*:t —-.1 a-.1-1331*. is the 5
claimant–dependants to ii»f
Rs.27.000/ — with interest at’ sdate bi”
petition and in all amr The
Registry is directed the statutory
deposit in LCRS to the MAC!’
ooncernéd.