.. 3 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 973 may 01:' SEPTEMBER 2008 BEFORE ' THE HOIWBLE MR.JUS'l'ICE SUBHASH _ BETWEEN : United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; . 111 Party Claims Unit, V . ~ Shankarnmayana Building, M. G. Road, Bangalorc--5=60 001. A * Represented by its - Regional Manager. . 1 .. APPELLANT 1. Sn1t;a Mohsina' " " ' W/o- Aged about 42 years " R[atNo.2} Suitannégar, 19} Dress, Mudaiiar Road é 'Bangal91"*e.-560 001. » ' Muafiar R , Inst , sr.;[;.;. 2-asadnavn ._ "Sis. Nallaiya Goundcr. E Major, 'T R] at. No.4A, 23, NGO's Cebny, Sabin Road, Namaklcal, (Owner/2°' respondent) .. RESf'€)NDEN'!'$
(By Sri. Mobil. Sharifl; Adv. for R1)
-2-
This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MN’.
Act against the judgmesztt anti award dtd. 04.03.2006 passed in
MVC 140.726/99 on the file of the X11 Add]. Judge, Court of Small
Causes, Member, MACI’, Metropolitan Area,
(SCCH.No.8), Awarding a compensation of Rs.2,37,0_G9]’v._4 with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date oftdeposjtt. V V
This Appeal coming on for Admission this
delivered the folkrwingt
This is an appeal by the ._ *
judgment and awant in M.V.C.No§?:26,I_199’9′ t 91th March
2006 on the file of M.A.C.’I’. ”
2. Claimants axe of the deceased.
The son ofthe rider of motor cycle,
suflered of rash and negligent driving by
a lorry and succumbed to the irnjuries.
‘The the deceased was 19 years at the time
V. of Rs.3,000] – per month.
H * Tribunal. the c}a1man’ t No.1 got herself
and also marked Exs.P1 to P10. Amongst the
% Ex.P1O is the salaxy certificate. The
noticed the salary certificate, but did not accept
V on the wound that. it does not bear the desiwoion of
W “tits deceased and took the income ofthe deceased at Rs.2.000/–
.3.
per month and gave a deduction of 5096 and applying multiplier
or am» granted compensation of Rs.2.16.000I- towarde of
dependency. in all, a compensation of Rs.2,37,0()0/’fwis
by the Tribunal.
4. Sri.P.B.Raju, learned
Insurance Company submitted theclaxmj ‘ . _ “i..°s; fikzdt L’
under Section 163-A of ». * (beminafier
xeferred to as ‘the Acfi income that is
pczmissibze is Rs.15,.ooo1– to the Act and
submitted that,_ :taItefi””‘notional income at
L Rs.2-4,000/-. fie’. ‘tbnt, inxpennissible in Iaw. He
also subrnitted filed under Section 163-A of
the Act, the oannotbe’: under Section 166 of the
Act. of by the Tribunal on the basis of
taken at Rs.24.000/- is contrary to the
p1ovi_siéir;;é.163–A and the mhedule of the Act.
Lwrnz Counsel appearm g for the c}a;unan’ ts submitted
2 & noékdoiibt, the petition is filed under Section 168-»A of the
the Tribunal has considered the petition as if it is
V Swtion 166 of the Act. He relied on the evidence led
D? “before the ‘I’ribu11al and submitted that, the claimants have
proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent
-4-
driving of the offending vehicle and the claimants have also
adduced the evidence as regards to the income of
and it is based on the evidence, the award has He
further submitted that, if the petition was
Section 163-A of the Act, the X “
and not 50%. The fact thatyihe
deduction towards personal 5:. it
presupposes that the pefition.
but in all its character, it 166 of the
Act
6. aii§es”fe:’eonside:ation in this appeal
‘As to? filed under Section 163-A of
Motor vemgszes Act could be considered under Section
A “iéfiixif Act. evidence supports the case?’
V V’ 1.63-A of the Act is inserted to provide fbr
‘.v’v’e:£:V_§ii:pensation in accordance with the second
vvfirovviding for structured formula. Section 163-A
for want of compensation based on the formula
° epm.«m~Dea in Schedule-II. ifthe claimant falls within the category
. V _ .4 therein i.e.. the income is kiss than Rs.40.000/-. Claim
under this provision does not require the proof of the rash and
,3
,’
negligent driving. The object of Section 163-A is to provide
compensation on the basis of structured formula and requires
deduction at 1/3’5 of the compensation.
8. In this case, it is not in dispute that, the
considered the entire case under Section 166 of
No.1 was framed, as to whether the t . :4
and negligent dxiving of the oflending vehicle ‘agece’fi§;2;=g;eg¢
I Whether what compensation to Ne’ tt
doubt. Ex.PIO is not considered hohvever. the
Txibunal has taken into of the deceased
at Rs.2,000/- based fhis and other
ciIcumst2::iv1cee._’ 1 “Et,is_fl of at:p1y’ing the multiplier to the
notional income, “tinder Section 163-}! of the Act.
The determinzttion ‘ of coxtiitttrensation is based on complete
J by theéjiétrétvies. In such circumstances, in my
the petition mentions as Section 163~A. but ‘
— Vt iiave understood the case, as if it is filed unfier
Section and have led the evidence and the Tribunal has also
e’j.finding to that eflect. In appeal. I do not find any
V’ to consider the case under Section 163—A and apply
u*i:!’1.e’HfoI’xr111}a. The fact that the Tribunal has also given 50%
deduction, it clearly shows that, it is only because the petition
was treated under Section 166 of the Act. No doubt. as regaxds
,%%’~
-5.
to the issue No.1, the Tribunal has stated that, it need not go into
the question of negligence. however. parties have led the-“evidence
as regard to the negligence. Even the Insurance has
taken a defence that. the accident was not due _
offending vehicle. In such ci1c11nIs’tanees._; ;
petition is termed as Section -ithe
evidence led by the parties ‘nof
there is any reason to 166. in
View of the pleading the parties. The
compensation if by taking into
eonsirierafionéfie isgnot on the higher side.
However, _ Linn the age of the mother
is 36 would be ’15’ and not ’18’.
To this V tan to be modified. If 15*
_ nun-nnrdnn is ‘l the loss or dependency would be
Accordingly, the loss of dependency is motiified
of 216.000/-, on all other heads, there
ll _ is no”dispnte_
” the Appeal is allowed in part. The total
that the claimants are enfitled is Rs.2,0I.000[ -. If
‘T ” the Insurance Company has deposited the entire compensation,
V U same may be transferred to the Tribunal and any diflenence
l
amount the Insurance Company is entitled to, the same may be
refunded.
KNMI –
