1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17" DAY OF NOVEMBER, zoos BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA_:(3OaVli;[§,A'V~1' Miscellaneous First Agpeal No.5408 of 3 A BETWEEN: United India Insurance Co... Ltd,,"'" - Jwalamukhi Complex, ' * ' B.H.Siddaiah Road, 9 Bangalore - 560 (102. _ ' Now represented-lay'-its Regional Manacj_er,;11E'e'l' _. _ United India=:'Ins_u-rarlce Co,j,'«--.Lts:'.._, V . Regional Office,"»S£:1anka'ran'aa*a.ya'na Buiiding~,*No.-2595 M.'G;;.'Ro"a--d,'--- Bangalore ~_-- 566-"0Q_l";., _ _ _ , ....APPELLANT (By Sn'. A.N,Krishn.as'w'amy.,.,,V Advocate) AND:4;' ~ A Sla.vithranuiTna, 'V _W,1,o'.aLa.tév Kannappa, Now-«.aged.,about 59 years, , "R/o.' Ganlgarastreet, '-._Ars_!i<e_re*. K';Ve1nkateshalu, * :._S/0"; Late Kannappa, HOW aged about 31 years, '' ''R/o. Mattanavile Naggehatli Hobii, Channarayanapatna Taluk. 3. K. Prakash, S/o. Late Kannappa, Age;Major, Working as Constable in Central Reserve Police, C/o. 2"" Respondent herein.
4. K. Subash,
S/o. Late Kannappa,
Now aged about 23 years,
C/o. 1″ Respondent herein
R/o. Arsil-(ere.
5. Managing Director,’
Pals Industries Ltd_._,*.. V V .
No.208, Peenya Ind’u’sstria!__A:rea, ” f_ *
11 Phase, Bangalore”;-“5.6GvCS8,=’-. .,
* I ~_,.IRESPONDENTS
(By Sri.M.B.l_$iarg.i_Jnd.58: Si7{i.t,l’S_ors.a ‘iiakkund for R1 to R4;
R5 Notice dispensed ‘with’)[f~ ‘_ * ‘
This MF’A[_~.is_” i’iled–_1i2ider_ Section. :73 (1) of MV Act
against the ;iudgmeat”A.and_fiaiiatd dated 27.12.2001 passed in
MVC No.9]/1998 on ‘the b_f’i”t»eii’i’or the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and
Acid}. CJ.M.;’~Arasike_re;~.vpaict’Iiy allowing the claim petition for
compe;ris’at.ion.
_ A_rThi’ls:l«ai§t;eval coming on for admission this day, the
‘=.Co~u d.e’i’i\{Ae:feid_th.e foliowing :-
JQBQMENT
ll?’ respondent is the wife and respondents 2 to 4 are
I ‘sons of one Kannappa, who succumbed to the injuries
ll”‘~-___””l:”siii’fered in a road traffic accident dated 18.10.1998
\
,/C
/
3
‘ involving car bearing Reg.No.KA–G4/l\i–9400. Claim petition
was filed in the MAC!” under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) claiming compensation.
The owner and driver of the offending vehicle deidllnot
contest the proceedings and remained ex parte.__;’_’AppVe-illjalntv: _
who was the 4″‘ respondent in the claim petiti-onf:c.on«tested_:”
the claim. Considering the evidence o.fs’PjiN4Si.»1:4.Aan-dl’2f-iandivi.’
Exs.P1 to P7, the TribunalV«h.as alssxessed /(lie: of
dependency at Rs.2,52,00G/– additionihas awarded
the other amounts and RSV-‘:.V€;i9,000/r
was passed. The to be paid
along with interest’-ajt’ithéearate’of 9% p.a. from the date of
petition till”the dVat’e_or=.’.orde;r and thereafter at 12% p.a. till
realisa:ti’on~ of VtneV::enti,re amount. Aggrieved, the 4″‘
“=__respo:nde’rttAi–n:the claim petition has filed this appeal.
heard Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned
ll”‘~~.__’s:ounsel” the appellant and Sri M.B.Nargund learned
for the respondents 1 to 4 /c|aimants.
\/
/’
OTHERS (ILR 2004 i<ar.3268), the interest which can be
awarded on the compensation determined supra–ijis»_'_69./#3.."
The Tribunal has erred in awarding the intere3t:"at.:i9:%"
the date of passing of the award andi»it»heAre'af.t'eVr'at'4J.';2'°/aj'tiiI'i_V
the date of realisation. Hence,;"i'.thei"i'mou.gV'i1ed
requires to be modified.
in the result, ti§é~..,_gpp.eda’E’§_ bart. In
modification of the judgment’ :3waAAi»’~Vr?.:i;V:»._i37assed by the
Tribunai, impUi3hé§1:i:’heriighi:.it’;i5″_’iiiéi’d”that the ciaimants in
the Tribunaii. herein, are entitled to
be awarded which shaii
carry interVestVa’t the date of filing of the
claim A..@etitioan” tilt the d’atVei”:of deposit in the Tribunal. The
“a.rnotsn’t in deposit’Vif”‘ariy is ordered to be sent to the MACT
To r .nece,s’s.atryVt’ai.ction.
Sd/1
JUDGE
T Ksi/-