1!! was man mm? or xanrwrarm AT 1% x ;%g{LL%g3 T 7; ~
DATED nus mm 251! my 02;? §¢vEmm3% ' J 7
"R395" ._ V V _
THE Horrsw MR. nzném
THE HOIPBLE
BETWEEH:
1
,.z-.3
V sH1vANANqA~PRA _
s/o.vEERA'rV f,;PPA"fg
55 YEARS . * -
R] AT HALAGAPU' A~VIL.I._.ACi5 .1-
BANDEHALL1(fi'=. _
ANURE(H) KOLI.~EG.AL'{_'I') ~*"
CHAMARAJANMEAR DIST
-PARa%A'F§'.Iiz mp SHMIANANJAPPA
'20' '$3533;
' ~.R/VAT VILLAGE
sANm:HA:;£.;I (P). Amwaamy
KC)LLEG£.L.(!5), CHAMARAJANAGAR
; DIST, .
i>R§::2y;A VI)/O SHWANANJAPPA
=1-;*. YE.ARs,M:NoR
% Rmr HALAGAPURA VILLAGE
BAiNDEHALL1 m, ANNUREH-1)
% KOLLEGAL m, cHA.MARA..mNAGAa
(By Sri A s SHIVAREDDY & KALPANA P v )
" DIS'I',SINCE MINOR REP BY
APPELLANT
T)'
v SHNANANJAPPA 4
an-.----
1 N DEVENDRA KUMAR
s/0. WAVAYASWAMY I I
No.7/509
SOUTHERN EXTN
KOLLEGAL =
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST
2 'PER ORIENTAL INsUImIsICEIV€:t)*A:,fI'D
IML BUILDING
160.221, CUBBONPET ROAD
N.R. SQUARE
BANGALORE , '
(REP BY BRANCEPMANIAGER) I ' I§;"F€ES'PO'NDEN'I'S
(By Sri C 'gI3:I5'i'>Ir_:i%{II2: R2 I
THIS MFA IS I-'ILEI)'I.u;s '«I73{_1)-- OF MV ACT AGA£NS'I' THE
JUDGMENTZANED AWARD Iimrgb: 27.5.04 PASSED IN have NO.
3410/2000 0;»: THE m_LE4,'oF'~fr_H.'i*.""xIII ADDL. JUDGE, MEMBER,
MACT, COUR'I'"<QF' _SM_ALL " cgusss, BANGALORE, (SCCH- 15)
PARTLY AI,.L_OWINGV_Tfl.E" CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEl§ING~ ENHAN{."3EME,NT OF COMPENSATION.
1'i§IS IMIFA came ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, bmmx
VERKA;u-1., I3EI_;_!VE:RED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGKENT
leamcd counsel appeared for the
M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, Learned counsel appeared for
m*'{}s_ponfi:eat No.1 and S11' C.Shankar Raddy, leamod counsel
- for respondent No.2. e-ivg
2. Chandramma wife “of appefiant No.1 and motheg”bf _
Nos.2 and 3 met with a tragic death on 14.06.2O(M)’V_uenVv x dx _
motor mad accident. On the said date jehe
when a jeep beaxing No.KA-01-M–‘f4%34f6 by ite.’ _
a rash and negligent manner the V
dmsed. Deceased on
various parts of her body!’ VA taken to
NIMHANS hospital§.fo§’:.:Vt::P.at:e’1Aee’1}£:’ was referred to
Sanjay Gandhi she succumbed to the
injuries sustainedebgr nér;
3. On her death’ the filed M.V.Case 110.3410] 2000
en” whereby and whenzunder the
held enfitled to zneceive in ail a sum of
with interest at the rate of 8% from the
tifi it is deposited. Hence this appeal for
4′
V V _ ” ‘*’TIee manner in which accident was caused and Chandrazmna
with death have not been disputed. It is also not in dispute
“B
that liability to pay compensation is that of
Insurance Company. It is further not inhgiispute V’ o
succumbed to the injuries sustained by if
5. In the original claim petition thatww
Chandraxmna was a houscwifg by way
of amendment, they tailoring and
milk vending – per month.
Obviously, would be an
after-thou.gh_t._ intention so as to get
more axr1ounV;?;’—- ‘ ‘
6. 1.oom_ od oouoso1..forop;5onoots submitted that the notiona}
inooznc }°Rs,–o1:S,{)QO/ by the Tribunal is much too low
aoo–v.omoosz month should be fixed as the income of
mentioned. herein above, subsequently appelmtsk
omcndod the clam’ petition and in place of house wifi:
parhb 1119.1′ column it is moo’ rpomtod as tam r and m1}k’
earning Rs.3,0{}0/~ per month. But the Tiibimai has not
W
accepted version of the claimants that dnsed = nu
as well as milk vending busincss. ThcrLA:’fo11a,4ciztjv
income of Rs.15,000/~ per
When the daimants themselves that
deceased was a house wife, ifsny made
claiming that she was a milk vending
business cannot rendered by a
house wife has for the purpose of
quantifying ‘E’ earning member.
3. The SupicpieCcnt’t”in of ymmausmzr RAHA vs B L
GUPTA 8!. cracks mg’ 197?? so 1153) discussed the factors to be
t.?§kei1- calculating amount of ooznpensation. In the
Court considering’ the mean’ object of the
‘ to ¢vegy’..ep¢[ssih:e situations, hekl thus:
V.”1(}. ” our Legislature has made laws to cover
‘A situation, yet it is well nigh impossibie to
fir all kinds of Nevertheless
the mcial nwd of the hour 1eqn1res’ that prams’ us
‘4 human lives lost in motor accident leaving a trail of
economic disaster in the shape of their tmpmvidcd for
families call for special attenfion of the Iawnrs to
meet this social need by providing for hmvy and
T6
9.
(A£R’§0′(‘)A-V]. SC 3218), the Supreme Conn held
value like a motor vehicle? Such an izadiviqés-1:.
distincfion ‘m absoluteky shocking to any judicial ca’
conscience and yet section 95(2)(d) of the Motor A4 %
Act seems to suggest such a disfinction. We _’
trust that our 1aw-makem will AV
this aspect of the matter mid :1
in Section 95(2)(d) of the MolVsr_4VehiAt:lee’V«Act. e%v;:¢[w¢ux¢:e
also like to suggest that
the Inslzrancc Companies to a sure of as
representing the vaiuc amount should
be left to be determined by special
circumstances ‘ farmer hope our
suggestions_ and the
obse1va*.:§£>11s:V6£ the cozmtry do not
becomévva 1x;e1*e}§:io11_S ‘ –. __ —
In ,t!3cx cage .5: :;A’rA= WADHWA & OTHERS vs gram op’
£11115: _.
“(}v§.}.’C§e;1’2etitt1t:1?on of India , A1121 — compensation
for de’a1:l3;”- computation -~ death of housewife in fire
accidentmvaiue ofse1vicesxeneiezedbyhe:r§ohouse–
* eaten (in modest estimafion is Rupees 3,000]- per
v _ .n_1oi;3.th in case housewife is between 34-59 ywrs of me
—“for eflerly housewife of 62-72 yam of age goup —
Evaiue of service rendered to house wouid be 20,000
Q RA.”
E
10. In a recent judgment of the Supreme
UNYTED mom INSURANCE cc)’.L’r’I)- .e ‘vs ~:’
RANCHHODBHAI PATEL & OTHERS (A33 Gtjm’RAT”:–“i’9)’ it
held that in respect of death of ‘ V
notice can be mkcn of and
Rs.1,50G/- per month can takenvh ” ” hhsgzch sezvxoc.-.s’ and
question of ._ V” may not mm’ .
1 1. It is those cases where it
could not actually earning any
income should be determined tafig
into considcrantefi-vxxge mpacity of the deceased.
nothing to her dependants ax_1d
otherh’ Even if she was not fining, the
by her would now be required’ to be
modes which will have their own economic
_’ and value and the pecuniary benefit from these
the domestic fmrnt as well a in the ‘
of the husband when the wife may have acted m a
hand wiil have to be assessed an tomlity of afi
circumstances.
12. In the instant case, appellant l.\JE.c;Q1__’is
appellants Nos.2 as 3 are minor childron of
post mortem report — Ex. P=~7, . L’
Therefore, subsequent WV 1 that
deceased was working as a vendiq busmcss
appears to be incorrect. Igfiempt to enrich
themselves in o:dc:~vto:z%r,§t highs: Thcmfotc, we are
of the View that wife and services
mndcred taken into consideration
at Rs.3,000}—. into consideration of
appellant No.1, wouki he 10. Taking into
by the Apex Court in the aforcsmki
judgx;:;e§}t;z’,v income has to be dcducted towaxds
Thus, the loss of services’ rendered by
of appellants would be Rs.18,000/- per
total loss of sccrvicos to the famfiy of the
firouid be Rs.1,so,om/-.
«*”Apart from that, appcfiants are entitled to notional amount of
‘f?s.S0,000/~ towards the other hows i.e., loss of conjugal
11′
R
happiness for appellant No.1, loss of motherly 9
appellants Nos. Zand 3, tlanspoxiationi
obscquics ceremony, amount spcmt A’ = L»
appeflants am entitled to Rs.2,30,€i®;’.- atV
3% pa. from the date of petmqn un1= % n
14. Aocoxtiingly, apppal is and award
dated 27-5-2004 “byv;’thé~_ M3410/2000
are modified. total compcnsafion of
Rs.2,30,00(): ] .’ gag; 3)_.:;f. MtVI’zVt>111 the date of petition can
deposit. of the vehicle is mus to
indemnify A;eVspoVg:&m;t- deposit the award amount with
‘fr)’i’1i* weeks. Advocate’s fiat is fixed at
Sd/-»
Judge
Sd/-
Judge
S Sub] sp