IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF OCTOBER, SD09
BEFORE '4V'R '
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE H $ifi®AP?Sflt
MISC. FIRST APPEALVN6[94S5f2oS5F{fiQlS'HE
VC/# A»w_ _ _ W 1?
MISC. FIRST Ap§SDL_xo S434/zfigé {Evy}
MFA.cRoSV245/2SQSfTn M§D:9435/2006
BETWEEN :
.a-um '_
MTA N9f§4S§%20d6:SV
The UniteS_:pdia'Tnsurafice§
Co.,Ltd,;xBraneh'Qffice}~w"
Polytechnic Read, '_ --
Chintamani'Tbwh;_KQ1&r'Dist.
By its RegiQnal,Office}
1"'f1cDr;VShankarafiarayana
Bulldlngy 25, M $.Road,
Bahgalore¥l,V
VRflby_1tS Regional Manager. .. APPELLANT
'; M{By_fidvDéate Sri.P.B.Raju)
1 "Ramamurthy @ Ramachandrappa
S/o Krlshnappa, 31 years,
,S R/at Adavigollavarahalli,
uamaralakunte Post,
Hchlkkaballapur Tq.,
Kolar Dist.
V.
-2
2. D.K.Kempanna s/o Dasappa,
Major, R/at Khannamangala
Village, Chemangala Post,
Sidlaghatta Tq., Kolar Dist.
3. N.B.Srinivasareddy s/o late
Bachappa, 38 years,
R/at Nadampalli village & Post,
Chintamani Tq., Kolar Dist?'
4. Dodda Narayanamma w/o late, V
Krishnappa, S3 years,.a '
R/at Kannamangala villége, 2 _x*l , W
Sidlaghatta Tq., Kola: Dist. ~,,"-' RESPONDENTS
(Advocate Smt.SfigunagR.fieddy fer R~l)"
(Advocate Sri.D L Bxasaa fdr 3+4)
(R-2 & 3 .. servad),l ' ' "
BETWEEN:
MA Na ééséréoosp _V
The Suited Ifiéia Insurafice~"
Co. Ltd,,"B:an¢h Qfiflceg
P.B Noilfi, Polytechnic Road,
Chintamani Town, Kola: Dist.
By its Regiohal ofiice,
1¥.§1oor;_shankaranarayana
Building, l5,«M.G,Road,
Bafigalore--1. V"'" """
, *R/by its Regional Manager. .. APPELLANT
"fi_ {By Advoéaté Sri.P.B.Raju)
ARE:
lgl, Doéde Narayanamma D/o
"*Muninarayanappa, 45 years,
"a_R/at Kannamangala village,
Sidlaghatta Tq.
L//X
2.
-3
D.K.Kempanna s/o Dasappa,
Major, R/at Kannamangala
Village, Chemangala Post,
Sidlaghatta Tq.
3.N.B.Srinivasareddy s/o late
(Advocate Sri.D.L.Prasad for~R§1)lMm'
(R~2 & 3 served) 1 _H';"
Bachappa, major,
R/at Nadampalli village,
Chintamani Tq.
MFA. CROB NO.245/2008:
BETWEEN:
Ramamurthy @ Ramachandrappa'x
S/o Krishnappa,
33Jyears3v
R/at Adavi gollavarahallig
MaralakunteeEost,,"
Chikkaballapur Tq.
AND:
1.
an
(By"Ad#ocaEe<SmtjSuguhawfi.Reddy)
D.K:KampannaAs/onbasappa,
_Majorf R/at5Khannamangala
.flVillage,"Chemangala Post,
'sgd1aghatta"Tq.
'Am;'
r,_ Chikkaballapur Tq.
, The Brandh Manager,
V 'Unlted India Insurance
"=Co;
LEd., Branch Office,
Polytechnic Road,
Chintamani Town,
x;l,Chikba1lapur Dist.
Dodda Narayanamma w/o late
Krishnappa, 50 years,
R/at Kannamangala village,
L///K
§"RESfiéfiDEfiTS;
CROSS~OBJECTOR
Sidlaghatta Tq.
Chickballapur Dist. .. RESPONEENTS
MFA 9485/2006 is filed under see.153(iy er av Act
against the judgment and award dated i7}2 2006 passed
in MVC No 13/2000 on the file of~uthe_'civi1 "Judge
(Sr.Dn.) & JMFC and Member, Addi.pMacT,'chiekbeiiapurg,
awarding appellant compensation of RsI2;62,800[e with:
interest at 6% p.a. from the Tdate 'of"_petition, till
deposit. V '= V 7i ' ' * ti'¥
MFA 9484/2006 is filed under see 173{1) of MV Act
against the judgment and_award\dated_28.2.2006 passed
in MVC No.1/O1 on the fiie of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)
& JMFC & Addl;f'_MACT; dfchinthamani, awarding
compensation of Rs.l;7l}200/fni5yi*deducting interim
compensation paid. ff~_any,A=with interest at 6% p.a.
from the date pf_the petition till its payment.
Mai pace 245/2QQ8'is filed under Order--4l Ru1e~22
of CPC against the jfidgment and award dated 17.2.2006
passea~i;x Mvc as 13/2000 nut the file uof Civil Judge
{Sr.Dn.) §"QmET$ & Member, Addl. MACT, Chickballapur,
partlyg allowingg the _olainL petition for compensation
and seeking enhancement of compensation.
l_These Appeals are coming on for admission this
dayg the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
These two appeals and the Cross Objections arise
V”out ‘of: the judgments and awards passed in MVC
t,ne,i3/2000 and MVC No.1/2001.
L////
2. In MVC No . 13/2000 , the Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.2, 62, 800/–~ with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of deposit’,-._ In MVC
1/2001, the Tribunal has awarded of
Rs . 1 , ’71 , 200/- with interest at 6% p . a_,u* Tclate
of Pitition till the date of payment; “*f*
3. Aggrieved by that, “3 ailzipellnantsinlsizrancei 3
company has filed No”. 94850/02 and
No.9484/2006. The_ claimant rig fivc__Ng}13/2000 has
filed Cross–Objection inlmra case 2&5/2008.
4. In brief the facts aie}_ That on 20 12 1999, at
about;4-300″fijT..m_f :ulnea:r’~.._i(ann–amangala village, the driver
of thedcar belariiing0No0AQ’CKP–1661 drove the car in a rash
and vneglitjenvtv.I;i.anrisr”‘:and dashed against the deceased
“” a” result of that, the deceased
v’=.L’Manjul’ar_:’1ma”lVAdsustained injuries and succumbed to the
éaméf ifhefpetitioner in MVC No.13/2000 filed claim
petition vclaiming compensation of Rs.9 lacs. The
‘..f1ie’sp.ondent–~4 in MVC No.13/2000 filed claim petition
compensation of Rs.}. la}-ch in MVC No.1/2001.
vv””‘i’he Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,6.2,800/– in MVC
Alblll
No 13/2000 and a sum of Rs.1,7l,200/~ in MVC
No.1/2001. Aggrieved by that, the appellant~insurance
company has filed MA No.9485/2006 V”and MFA
No.94s4/2006. The claimant in MVC ngfiiaiéfibo has
filed Cross Objections in MFA CROB 245/26os;ii”ti «
5. The learned counsel for “the:uappel1antf;in’ MFA;
No.9485/2006 and MFA No.9484}2do6″i.é;;.the”in§ttancéi
Company contended that tho petitions hafié”been fiied
in respect of the same accident and the Tribunal has
granted. compensation– in jbgth “the teases which is not
correct. He also snbnitted_thathMVC No.13/2000 has
been filed by the’husbandwand MVC No.1/2001 has been
filed by the nether) therefore, the Tribunal was not
justified in_grantind compensation in both the cases.
He _therefore~,submitted that, the impugned judgments
,and awards cannot be sustained in law.
“55 _ is ‘against this, learned. counsel for the first
respondehtnin MFA No.9485/2001 and the Cross~objector
‘”< "in MFA sacs 245/2008 submitted that the petition filed
.dby,the husband is prior to the petition fiied by the
R"=uWmother. Further she submitted that the Tribunal has
L"//M
taken the income of the deceased at Rs.60/~ per day in
MVC No.13/2000 which is not correct. She also
submitted. that the deceased. was working _asd,ax_coolie
and also rendering service as a house%ni£e"_and
therefore, Tribunal should have taken the income 5:
the deceased at Rs-100/~ }pe;"daay,'d=iFun;harf shes
submitted that the multiplier adoptedubgfltheilribtnal
is also not correct. She therefore submitted that the
impugned judgment No.13/2006
needs to be modifiedrlsd u l l
7. The learned counsel for the fiih respondent in MEA
No.9485/2506′,.””sV{i£5£h.1tt’e’dr_\”t.h’at7;the claimant in MVC No.
13/2069 rwas *5o§* {aging “care of the deceased and
therefore? he dis ;notfl=entitled for any compensation.
Shejjthereforee submitted that the petition in MVC
iNo:l3/2QOQ”,may be dismissed and the compensation
“awarded pbyfi the Tribunal in MVC No.1/2001 may be
confirmed,5
v”R._ I have carefully considered the submissions made
‘ bymtfi@ counsel for the parties.
L///W
9. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting
compensation in both the cases, tifier, MVC
No.13/2000 and MVC No.1/2001? ‘=”‘”
2) Whether the Tribunal has awarded tfiustn*and
reasonable compensation? F.’»” “i *
10. POINT NO.l: It is relevant to note} twoipetitions”
have been filed in respecb of*the sens a9cident and
compensation has been awardednx abeceased Manjulamma,
the wife of the first respondent in M@hVNo.9485/2006
has died in the accident that occnrred on 20.12.1999.
The first ;:éspsndent§pih “niFuwg:94a5/2006 has filed
petition in hid he i3féU0b and the respondent No.4 in
MA uo.§4g5;go§¢ihg§]fi1¢a petition in MVC No.1/2001
claiming * compensation » The Tribunal has awarded
compensation in both the cases. Two petitions cannot
s”a_beL*maintained’~in’ respect of the same accident.
v>.’Therefore;%Jone of them. needs to be dismissed. The
petition fiied by the husband is prior to the petition
flied tbydfithe mother and mother is a party in MVC
“»xNo.;3/2000 filed by the husband. Therefore, the
lpetition filed by the nwther needs to be chsmissed.
Lflyflf
_q
Accordingly, MVC No.1/2001 filed by the mother is
hereby dismissed. Point No.1 answered, accordingly.
11. pomr No.2: In MVC 3.3/2000, the;”‘””1’i?ib_1:;tna.l”«phas
awarded a sum of Rs.2,62,800/~. .~Towafds._lossu cf
dependency the Tribunal ihasicyiwatdedd’Va,yMsnm’ iofu
Rs.2,44,800/~ taking thc_4incomen of ythed deceasedg at
Rs.60/– per day. The deceased fies ;?h§§§é wife and
also doing coolie ncrh.th§heteio;e, the income of the
deceased can be ‘Jts§&Wy, é%jjygs,so/- per day.
Accordinglyb it is[tahen.1 mhe Tsibunal has taken the
age of the ydeceasednias ‘édi years. The age of the
husband is aisc§25 years)» Therefore, the appropriate
multiplier is7ld_.y°lf%the income of the deceased is
taken at gs Bfi/e pet day and 1/3rd is deducted towards
petsonal expenses,’ the loss of dependency per month
ica@§s’£¢ Rs 1600/- 5?: anti? and per annum it comes to
‘”Rs’-i’__lSiJA,”§C’0?’;-.fVf*”multiplier of 18 is adopted, then, the
compensaticn payable towards loss of dependency comes
V”to Rs 3;45,600/– and accordingly, it is awarded.
Ai2.” The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/–
uhmtowards loss of expectancy and a sum of Rs.2000/~
1,/
-Ii”?
towards funeral expenses which is inadequate. A sum
of Rs.10,000/– is awarded towards loss of expectancy
and a sum of Rs.5000/– is awarded towardst funeral
expenses.
13. The compensation awarded by the Tribnhai tofiards
loss of consortium and transportation charges is just:
and proper and therefore, it’ does Knot ‘call ‘for
interference.
14. The total “%oomF§ngationJdrpayable comes to
Rs.3,71,600/eaand the breakfiué is §S follows:
a) Towards_ldss or dependenoyi”W’ .. Rs.3,45,600~OO
13) Towards _a.’Lds’ of~._ex’pec=t_an_cyV_ ‘
= ‘ ‘ i’ “of life .. Rs. 1o,ooo–oo
c) Towards.fdfiera1 expenses; .. Rs. 5,000–OO
d) flowards loss or consortium .. Rs. 10,000–00
e) Towards transportation charges .. Rs. 1,000–OO
Total: Rs.3,71,600–OO
is’. l$t3;g,Aceordingly, the appeal in MFA No.9484/2006 is
“aiiofied sands the judgment and award passed by the
‘Tribunai in MVC fio.l/2001 is hereby set aside and MVC
so.1/2901 is hereby dismissed. MFA. No.9485/2006 is
V» dismissed and MFA CROB.245/2008 is allowed and the
Atjudgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC
H13/2000 stands modified granting compensation of
Rs.3,71,5oo/– instead. of as.2,62,8oo/v with interest
at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
hf’ _
realization. The Insurance Company fi¢e., the
appellant in MFA 9485/2006 shall deposit» the “amount
within 8 weeks excluding the amount already deposited.
The 1” Respondent in MFA Noj9fi85/2CD6eite,,hhnshandfofi
the deceased shall be entitled to he 2,UD[§UQ/+_with
interest. The Respondent;4_in MEA’3485}2UU6 i.ei} the
mother of the ,decease f%.§hgll “*he _}entitled to
of the amount
o\°
Rs.l,7l,600/r with 7intgféstfff,”5o
awarded in favour of the Resfiondents J. & 4 shall be
invested in fised»de§osit.in shy nationalized bank for
a period of three years.- The Respondents 1 & 4 shall
be entitled to hdthdraw the interest accrued on it.
The balance amount shall be released in favour of the
W”g fires np the award, accordingly.
The efiount in deposit shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal for disbursement.
Sd/~
IUDGE
‘”R/201009