VVV 1"
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE
DATED THIS THE 12"" DAY OF JAN UARY. 2010
BEFORE)
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
M.F.A.NO.852/2009[MV]
BETWEEN:
The new India Assurance C0.Ltd.
Essei Chambers. Karangalpady
Mangalore»3 _
Repby Regional Office A 4'
N0.2--B. Unity Building Annex ~
Mission Road. Bangal0re_--56O 027.
By its Regional Maaizlger " A
{By Sri.C.R.Ravishankar. Ad-in) A
AND:
1. Smt. Meeri9.. aged"5V4 J
W/0.lat'e M . K. K€S--.ha\--T_£1 "
'~ ,2. S'ri'2.Sa_n1ith. aged v8.3.«yea1's
€'_-,0 '
' .Vs'}'o.1a::e M;1§.Keshava
i\fIsiS2i.ifi'ke1. 30 years
' I)/i().la1,e' --M.I:§.Kesha\Ia
Q 4. aged 26 years
1) ml: iaie MK. Keshava
.'iMsu§Swetha. aged 26 years
D/0. late M.K.Kesh.ava
Respondents No.1 to 5 are R/a.
Door N0.3~i8~158l
Kadri Kaibattaiu. Kadri
Mangalore.
E
6. Sri. Sridhar Ra} Shett_V. Major
S/0.Sri.Seet,hat’::u’1’1 Shetty
R / a.Kadikaru. J€{)iI’l&1n10g8l’L1
Mangaiore ‘£’::-ttuk
Respondei:._t§’e.
(By Sri.Jeeva.r1 K., Ad\?.t’or R1. to R5}
This dppeai filed under Seeticm 173(1}.;j’of M;’J’;Pxfft””– ”
against the judgment and award dated 12.11,2QO’é}§.pVc.ssed 1′-I1″
M.V.C. No.1889/2005 on the me at the {I Acte1′;; Dianne:-._V
Judge. Member. MAC’F–lli, Daltshitna _iM{é1rt1*i«.ad’;at.Ma111gaL1ore_, A’
awarding a Compensation of Rs.8.O9.928/4 with’ i.11t.ereSt,@-.
6% p.9.. from the date ofpetit.io;1_t.i1I ree.A1is’atiOr1._~7., ‘
This appeal coming on fC*sJTT..’c’LC1II1iSVS’i,F)dI’]”stiiiszljiafit, the
court. delivered the following: 9
This is Company
agaixtsttvdd ‘._WV1″2».11.2OO8 passed in
Mvc.N¢5′.~.1389/2905._b11_::h’:sh’e;e~ file of MACT, Mangalore.
award_i,ng eoérzwgcijensattohhof Rs.8,09,928/– against which
” V’ “he p’refer1*ed thvisfleippeal.
t
1Sh”sttbh’.1itted by the learned counsel for the
ap}5e11a1j_.t4 MACT has taken the multiplier on the
of youngest. c121ughter~petitioner No.4. Petitioner
_ ‘No.-1 is the widow of the deceased. The reference has
wiczeerx made on the decision in Sarala Varma’s ease
‘reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 wherein it is held that in
case of death of a person aged about 55 years.
t
5. Though it is submitted that the award passed by
the IVIACT is just and proper. the fact remains 4\x’§.7ll’:§”fi71_(fI’
multiplier of the youngest daughter can be .
the deceased was aged about 55_years. “‘l»:?i’e,\’\V}*’V.of.Vt,l*:vre
judgment. rendered by the
referred supra, in case ‘lot’–….deat’h of l’pai’=ents.,the’» ‘
multiplier should be__taken_._bas.ed..__on..lthewage of the
deceased. The age 55 years and
hence, 11 prntitltiiilierfl and the
-. The other
headsvdo” l’nio’d’£I£ication as the same is
just of the above. the total
compensation”wo’alo–._leo*fne to Rs.5.50,00()/– instead of
–.’V'”Aee-ovrdingly. the appeal is allowed in
8. T’he”amount’ in deposit. be transmitted to the
l*”},NLaeT;tAangakne.
Sd/m
3* IUDGE