IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15" DAY OF MARCH,
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.ASREED_H'A'Rj.RRAGE:. S'
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JuST1CE*A._N.vEM§JOOPA,LA;oo_wC§;A
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST ARREAE No.S9OE{/2oo4A,(Mv)
BETWEEN: J A S H N
1. Vaishaii P»ra'bhu, "
AgedT4v7..years}*§:A: "
W/L). Late"M;VRan1ach%a'mjra Frabhu,
R/o'.*_M)'s. Kitt'SV"Phar,maC'OtiCa|s Works
Near Ra?iway'EStat'i'ori;A--..» V'
Manjeshwar, VKa__sa':Vgo«d-~STaiuk,
K;erei_a State. '
" V' ._ ..... .. 'V
u"x.(E3y'S'ri.G.RavéShankar Shastry, Adv.)
. ' Caged '26«..Y€~a_VS,
" .,_E.SfTo,,_fE.--.at'e' P-flfizamachandra Prabhu,
Rio. E»?/'jS.. Kitt's Pharmacuticals Works
».Is3ear,~RaSi'E':Nay Station,
Manfieshwar, Kasargod Taiuk,
E<e"rai__a State.
S :1'-XPPELLANTS
' AND:
1. Narayana P. S/o. Babu Belchada,
Major, Permunje House,
Pavoor Village, Kasargod Taiuk,
Keraia State.
2. United India Insurance Company,
Bridge road, Balmatta,
Mangalore ---- 1.
3. Divisionaf Controller,
KSRTC., Mangalore Division,
Mangafore. *
(By Sri L.Sreekanta Ra"o«,_Adv."'fo'£V,_R2V,""r~.._
Smt.Sumangaia A.Swa«.rn"y_, A_dV2,,'f0F"-R3A;"*
R1 served) "
Thm afi§e§ffned anger sefihon 373(1) oriwv Act
dated 19.05.2004 passed
in Mvti me of the Member, MACT~III &
II, Addi.' Mangalore, dismissing the
ciaingi' petition 'fo_{c'om;5ensation.
é"x_This,:'..abpeal coming on for hearing this day,
delivered the foliowing:
JUDGMENT
it it One Ramachandra Prabhu is the owner-and inmate
“of Maruti van proceeding towards Puttur. KSRTC bus
proceeding from Puttur to Mangaiore in an opposite
V. ‘:.R’Es’§oi§’beNTs it
direction, collided with the Maruti van resulting in death of
Ramachandra Prabhu. Wife and son of the decea.s_ed:’lf.i_|ed
petition seeking compensation against driver
Maruti van and also against l<SRTC,,b'us. of the'
Maruti van is prosecuted by theg'po:licée»._'for"
negligent driving and caus~;'ng…_the lacclidentigi"Tji1.e.,.Tr§'3buVna.l,V:*
found that the accident occu_r_r'ed:_ soglelylhonlaccoviunt of the
negligence of the the van and hence,
dismissed the.c|vaim:.a*gainst' Tribunal also
dismissed.tlhe-'Lclai'm agha-i..n.st the insurer of the Maruti van
becauseplthel "w.pet.iAtion'e..ts are not entitled to seek
corlfilpensationforlthe death of the insured in the accident.
petitioners are in appeal.
police no doubt, have prosecuted the
driver’-.V:of’vtihe Marnti van for rash and negligent driving.
all-+lo4we§2’er, the perusal of the mahazar of the scene of
Votfence discloses that the width of the road is 23 feet. At
“the time of accident, it was heavily raining. At the scene
of offence, there was heavy oil spill. The accident is
almost a head~on collision. In that view,
proper to assess the negligence ofthe driv’e’r= 2
bus at 50% and negligence of Ma~ruti iv.a.’ni.’a’t 5’Ci:§3,4,_ ~:::I_n
that view, the dismissal of the.._clairn*-.aoaiVnst’v:th..ev.insu_:%eriofpii»
the Maruti van is sound and However, the KSRTC
would be liable to pay”5zC?’% the. croihpensation assessed.
3. It isthe sa~y”offthe-ap_pellantsT’/3 petitioners that
the decea_s_ed shop and earning
Rs.9,VO’UO’/’~–iiipgm.’§71:l*ience’,-‘c|al’m”‘uV:nder s.163+A of the MV
Act v\’}”oul’d’_ ‘invairn:ta.l.’nable. The appellants have
produced”‘miateria._l Atoll Show occupation of the deceased.
l-io,iii:eve’r,.,,_no clredible material is produced to prove his
‘ .iincom’e,.:’*In that view, income of the deceased is assessed
‘at,”Rs.3,é3′.3i?’,r;.:5′ p.m. 1/3″ to be deducted towards personal
expenses Rs.2,222/– would enure to the benefit of the
it xdependants. The total loss of dependency would be
V’l?.s.,2,222/~ x 12 x 12 m Rs.3,19,968/–. Wife is entitled to
‘ Rs.25,OOO/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants
are together entitled to Rs.25,000/– for loss of expectancy
and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses.
appellants are entitled to aggregate
Rs.3,79,968/-. KSRTC however,_..wQ_L;|d _-be”i’ie1I;!e””tc§’repay”V’
50% i.e., Rs.1,89,984/– with inte’rest:’ at:’6%_’p~.e’;
date of petétion till payment; __”‘–~._
The appeal is aI.:bwed indi<':é te't'Vi above.
REESE