IN THE HISH CGURT G? KAREATRKR AT EANGELOREQ
DATED @515 THE Sm may 0? AUGUST, 20o8{'f7«"
QRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. EUSTICE KuL,4MAN3UNA§§'""
Axb fi .
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTiCE_A.$;_§ACHfi§?UREhW.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST fiPPE$L"H§;i851 Q§'2a0é { }
BETWEEN: WM
1.
Venkatalakshmiir’ ;{ a–V:”= * »HW;
Wfo. late H;C.§agaraj;’_ –; f
Aged about 25*yéars,Vf v_:
2. ManjeShé;”aE5′ .; _»_
S/0. Lata–H,€gNgga:a§;q
Aged abcut ?.years;_u*,’,
3. Manofi, a V _ ~, »
sfo;’iate H;fi,Nagaraj,
~;fi Aggd about 5% years,
,~Eaby Cfiandfiéna,
‘,D£§.*iate”H:C,Nagaxaj,
Rg@d’abGut_§%’yearS,
_ AQHEO 4 aré since minors,
<HRep. by their natuxal guardian"
. MothexFVenkatalak$hmi«A1
'5,'Qangamma,
' Wfo. late L.G.Govindaiah,
V uwéged about 53 years,
R"~$: Shashikumar,
S/O. late L.G.Govinfiaiah,
Aged abaut 29 years,
?. Kum. Kalavetni,
D/0. late L.G.Govindaiah, i n
Aged about 15 years, … A??ELLANT{$n"i
A? being minor, reg. by
her natural guardian their
mother–A5. _m_
All are rXat Vajarahalii,
Byragi Coleny, Bidadi Hobli,
Ramanagara, .*-_
Bangalore Rural 3istrict;,"z
[By M/5. D.L.Suresh & B,?;§iipnd, AeVe,§u}
AND: V
1. The Oriental Ensuranbe’Cn.”Ltd.,Ii
Rep. by itsgfianegerg _ “v “{V,m_
No.44/45, Leo $hQp§ing{Cnmplex,y
Residency rQ53{V’ . lFil.V, a v
Bangalore*56@7Q25.x”Vl<~
2. Jameel Ahmed{,wa°e4~_’n
S/0. Mohammad Khasimifiab,
Major; L i V’ l1′.’F ‘
No.4535, 2?”-cross;_’
St. Marin Road)’ ‘
N,REMQhella, “*-.Hv …..
°*Mysoréa560,o79. … REEPONDENT/S
‘l””ga§’sfi{‘§;e;Raju, Adv. for R2.
= – ‘sri;;H;c.sh:varamn, Adv. for 32.3
{vivi-
1_ l’ii~:§hié” MFA in fileél u/sec.173(1; of M.V. Act
‘,ag3inst.the éndgment and Award dated 6.10.03 passed
:n*,Mvc= No.601fO1. on the file of ihe learned :8″
‘*_ A&dl. Judge, MRCT–4, Court of Small Causen,
_ Bangalore {SCCH-4}, partly allowing the claim
A “petition for compensation end seeking enhancement of
“*cempensation.
This MEA coming on for Admission, this day
Pachhapure J., delivered the following:
3
JUBGEMEfiT
The appellants being the legal repreeentetiéeex
of deceased H.C.fiagaraj have sought fer ehhahCemeht_ *
of the compensation awarded by the Trihuhei fer the«
death in the motor vehicle eccidént._
2. The facts relevahthf9t the PUf§é§¢”ef*the*i
appeal are as under:
On 13.01.2091 at*hebdutflV7.3§”rp.m. while the
deceased-H.C.Nagaraj ewes vridin§h the’ TVC Moped
bearing reg._i§o;KA. §5~fiA;34$3e eh” Bangalore~Mysore
Road, neertfiideei} the ifirry bearing reg. No.KA G9~
1636 came ‘fromv the Ahihfi. side, driven in rash and
_eegligefitu.mahder hit the moped and thereby the
h;de¢eeeed4H.C.Ragaraj fell down and sustained
ififeriee ewe iiee at the spot. The claimants being
z’h’the Awife;”_ehildren, mother, yeunger brother and
~.®iweIster .Cifiimed the comeensation for the loss of
Hiaéeeendency and on other conventional heads.
–” The deceased was Astreioger by profession ahd
“”wae owning a moped. He was married and maintaining
his wife, 3 children, mother, younger sister and
brother. Taking into consideration the material
piaced on record, the Tribunai has awarded the totai
compensation of Rs.2,86,000~0O and dissatisfied with
the qmantmm. of compensation, the appellentedihéfieto
preferred this appeal, seeking enhancemeht.:fdd
3. We have heard the learned Couoaeidfoattfiei
apgailants and also the resfiondentS;V
4. The point that arises for our oonsideration
is;
WhetherV the 5,Ve@peliaote;d= are
entitled _4r for; j;enhanoement of
com§eneation?7TIf fie, to fihat extent?
5. ‘The scrfitiey of the evidence reveaks that
the deceased:H;C.Nagaraj: was aged. approximately’ 28
voyears bat ‘the “time .of the accident. He was
dfistroécgarkby profession and owning a moped. He was
lookiig.efte:’§ie wife, 3 children, mother, younger
Vbrother afid”sister. The Tribunal has considered the
tdddinoome of the deceased at Rs.2,0§8~8$ p.m., which is
donkthcflower side. Even for an agricultnral Coolie
‘:or_ labour, the income woeid be not less than
R”»§S.10O–OO per day as per the decision of the Apex
Court. Taking into consideration the avooation and
the fact that the deceased was owning a mepee and
also maintaining the family members, we are ef the
ceesidered opinion that it is just end_flfifefietl1tee
assess the income of the deceased at~»RSQ4;O0Q”§3*
p.m. As the eeceased was aged eboet 28 §eere at the
time of the accident, the multiplier “l69.fiee teubele
adopted. in the circumstefices, the eppellents are
entitlee to the enhegcedfmeoeyeeeetionltaeeunt as
follows:
Rs. Fe.
1. Loss of depeeeeecyfefe; ~ g
{Rs,4,QQ0&l{3%§_l2 xl16j»_wx1 5,12,ooo–oo
2. TewardS_’lQss=_of’–eStete, less
of love and efifeetiqfi, lees of
consertium,, transportation of
V theg “deed “=.body, funeral
.~W exeenges etc. ….. H
‘V V – *- 40,0oo~oo
Total 5,52,GOO-O0
VV :5la In the circumstances, the appellants are
‘l; eetltlee to a total compensation of Rs.5,S2,0GQ–8O
.El*._ “eltfil interest at 6% p.e. from the date of the
lx eetition till its payment. Xi:
In the result, the appeal is allawed in part.
The appellants are entitled ts the enhancefittbta;
compensation of Rs.5,S2,Q§§~§3 with inte§ést:&tV§%t*
p.a. fzom the date of the petition tili its pé§mé$t;_t
Gut of the enhanced c0mpefisatiun,’ta~”sumy_Q£t
Rs.1,00,000~OO with propertiegatetifiterefit}sh§}fl bé. V
deposited in the name of ttéflyife/tpfiéliafit No.1,
Rs.25,000~OO each shat: be fle§§§it%da;n tte name of
“m min”: ‘”‘hil.§ren/3,¥?zé’§E…ié§/fit1 4 with
proportionate fifitérast afit “sfifiil-tté kept in the
depositt in €%t§i*fiétiofiéi;§édi:Eéfikt till they’ attain
the age $5 m§jfirtt§§TT§§ réfiéiting amount shail be
paid to fitteV at§é;§afitS%¢léimants. ?he award is
accordinglytmodified§;
– éfi
sal-
Judge
Sd/–
Judge
K3m*