High Court Karnataka High Court

Vijayalakshmi vs Rajashekara Reddy on 24 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs Rajashekara Reddy on 24 February, 2009
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
rzwwvuwnurt "MIME fiVaE"1m\i£'€fl!"1aIH"$i'\J'Q Kl

awn wwumi yr mmmwmlnnm Wiwrl kawwlil WE' KAKNRERKA Niki?! EJGURT OF KARMAYAKA H335'? CQQRT Q? KAXNATQKA H53

IN THE HIGH mum or KARNATAKA, AT  % 7"f 

DATED mm THE 242:: DAY or FEE.§2U§?:§F§?Y'2£).i§9;.: %  3 ;T T 7

THE HON'BLE Imwsrzcs   

BANGALORE.

BEFORE  

mas. N0. 

BETWEEN:     E  

1)

9)

13/ ex. 

X aged   years,

" ~ .. s,IoK% 

     4 month';

  No.2a.'ad3 a.ra1nmx§ Wyi'-"'%s?§"%afl«23'm::W;§ mm mm;

 

:~§%:2m Wwmww fiw iflflflfl Wm 



w « mwrvmvun wrmavmpww

W w-N- wvunfl  nunavnzfinfi fllwfl LUUKI U1" KAXNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARN&'§"A§{A H3551 COURT (3? KRRNATAKA HM

AND:

1) Sri Rajuhckam Redwr __

81¢ ('.11 Raddy,       4
No.35'7, 3*' Cross,  Iarguia '   '
Ulnaor,    "  --~

2) M]: Orientallmuramé  
13.0.): 213 to 217,    
3"1Ma.inroa.d,    
Chgmarqjpet, "    _

    
my  tau-R-2:

ms M.F.A"'.»I$ F1Lw%U2~I13ER SECTION 173(1)
or THE 1'UNA_C'l' maxnsr THE .JU9anmN'r AHD
Ammo ::.a:rn5D%A  ' mssnn IN we
NO;97/E2004 cm THE FILE or ADDL clvn. JUDGE
as ADDL; 1smcT;K9m3, many ALLOWING THE

 ..PE f!I'I'It'}H -}i«*oR coM1=ENsA1*IoH AND
T gamma; snnmezmm or commwsanon.

 %      THCBLTGH wars MFA Is POSTED 1-'on

  apnnme, WITH THE oonsmrr oraom sums 11*

 A %1s  mw.LY on THIS mvmm THE coum
% %TnELIvmm3 THE FOLLOWING:

awmm Wmwwfi W WW3 Hmw  W mmw %W§%~»% wwmmw M Mam Mmw ww..;z.WW§%§ gm» ..EY%§%j"?%é:'f%$~'%zfl?§}€.?'3§f%=§:.



'Wu II:-army W|fl'1Ifi"0I\nl"!l I5

«awn wwrwaml  nnmmmimnn fllwfl vuwwm U!' KAKNKIRKA NW9" QQUKT QF      

JUDG_MEfljIf

of one I(.Veeraswan1y_. chaHeng1'n3thg§-:judgm"__' '      7
awaui pasted in MVC No.97/20%;' 1-'5.2   

by the Addl. met, at xo1a.r._

2. The relevarn: mtg qr 1%:-2:;-:1  on
173.2004 at    %  %  é  deeeaacd
  with his
frimd an a.  bearing No. KA-
oa-EG-+995ag%&whu; near Padmanm
  mitkkxszzliolar ---~ Bangalcme 1-mi, a

  Na. KA-O3-C-27 was
 itfa  negligent maxmer by its driver
"  account of the impact, the decefl
 to SNR Hospital, Koaa: for firnt aid and

thereafter ahified to Manipal whsrc he was declared



ME .W§%A{f%i'fie«-Mflzaw mmmvmmm «am mm,

 

%@ Mmm §~%fl§§~% =WsWZ$.WWE%"%s%'

 

%»%$1'.%§%% Wfiwflmimfi W mam Wm -a:=-sa-'EwwMmm M imam mm wwmm



-um - wwwnv  nnnlinifinfl nmvrs LUUK! or KARNATAKA EH6?-I CQLBRT OF KARNATAKA MGM COURT 0%' §(ARMA?'AMA H54:

as dead. Contending that the dwcasad 
tclcoom mechanic and the only bread    
claim petition aeeldng  

hleada.

8. On maeipt of   the 1*
respondent  exparte.

while 2-=4 and filed its
ntatemexllll’ averxnenta made
in the its dismissal.

the above pleadings, thc

following isauea:-

1) .. Whethcr the pcfitionelsm prove. that
wine K.Veeraswamy as/0 Late Kallaiah
died in a road traffio anaidcnt that
occurred cm 17.3.2004 at about
8.00 pm. at NH 4 road in fmnt of
Padmanabha Jelly factory near IOC
Kola:-Bangalore road, due to rush or

negligent driving of lorry bearing
NELKA-03/C-27 byita driver? .

zifi écéflfiflfl Mflm $0 lwfiflfi Mfliiéfi W}W%W§%%&”=’l;€*”j;Z’=?I= fifl lmflflfi §~§€’T3%§M W§W’iEF%«§3*;W’}*§ M3 lmlm %*§L;’§§%~§ %:*f’%@’..M’%%«§%%%}% fig ..3,M’&%

*%”i2.”%§%l§ %}%’%”.i%W%’*’«l=%”

-uriluu wrumrmivi I E

Lei’ till maliaation. Nat bung’
‘ma award, the o1mxna.nta’ had

the learned Counsel m: the appenan

swua wuwwnfl Wmflflfifllflflfi THWJVI 1.v\J’3Kl Ur KAKl’R’AEA

2) Whether the reapondsenta prove that
tlry am not liable to pay the
omensation for the mama: atated’-._”

inthe objection statement’-_’_4 ” = ~

3) Whether the petitioners an if
he compensation, if go, in ,:

amountand firm whom_’?~~._%’ ” ‘

4) What order?


5. In support 
examined P.W. 1    to Ex?-7.

6. On   on recmtl the

Tribunal awarehd of Ra.9,95,000[-
the 6% per mnum from the

the Ia:-ned Counsel for 2″ respondent –

E’»%fi}E%°% wmwgw £0 ififlflfl W

W Wwmmma M WW3 Wm Wwwmw W Msiw mm W%%?§.WM%5% m ,::gga§9m«.~:a’ M We

mg camended that the Tribunal
. salary while awarding the.

ma in mat, the amount had to

‘war “wan: nnnnu-unnn l’El’&7l”¥ LUUKI or KAKNATAKA HIGH COUR”? QF KARMATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HK

V. tax and under the circuieas, no

Vtnterthzrence can banana: in the said appeal. He

8. It is submitted on behalf of the apwllant

the deceased wasworkinaasa. Teleoom ifii. A. H
BSNL, Hoaalnte, he was mawiragw « L
R’8,1O5l_ per mm M P” %Ex%§P_6’%% A
But, the ‘l’ribu.na1 failed to

salary that the dmmd

has awarded loan

of dependency, the award
made on on the lower
side which

9_.__ _ Pat..%l_1¢£or:tr~aV, for respondent H92
and award of the Trmunal

flfl fimflfi Wflgté WWiW%%%% atfi mam %”§%i*§i%E~% W}Wim%%W% fig mam MQM WW&WM%W $3 ififlé

Wwiitfmflwfi fig fiflfiflffi Wm

vwrnwumvz wvn n\r1.u\IUr~nnr1I\rwA V’

aevww wwwn: yx’ mmmnumznnn HEW?! HIJUIII SJ!” KHKNRERKR Nififl UUURT OF KARf’£ATAKA

furtlmr submit that then: is no need to
the £:ox!1P¢333fl0I1 on the consnmtional 1

afiresaidreamnn.

10. Having heard the boat;

only point thm arises f¢:2r..;:1y to»

11. On ;. on record, it is
in aged 35 years at the

%%%TtL;m-A Ex.P-6 — pay slip, he was

” f. of Rs.a,1o5;-. There is no

%c.»:; placed by the appellann with

é cnhawad salary that tho «nomad
rweivedeithw with tlw mm oftime
account of pnmotiom. In the absence of

such materials, the Tribunal was jtmtified in not

taking into eonasidcrafitm that aspca while

iwfiifififimé Wmwaswz xfifi .,W”za:.%:§ E~%i”‘;%§§»% %”Z%Wi.WN%%”§E £9 fififififi %°~%i’§§é*§ %’W..WW%Wfi 23$ mawm mm :§%f;§ J§:’&3s”aémk:§..-;~%§’T§w%~«2 Ww..wm%m: »..am iwm

rsrvucvwwu

awarding the eompensaticn on the head of
dependency. Even otherwifie. the Tribunal A. H
deducted the statutory deduction» sag; A
tax and Ineeme tax, but has WW1 %
fin-r the purpose of awarding

head of loss of i e HtHl1e
cimumetanoen. I with
the award made ‘1V<:aaiT.§.f:'f

12. As comemed,
eonnidenng’ deceased, his age
as: we and mm mm
and 4 months, ,

an conventional heads requires
a%.§ normally what is awarded by this

be Ra.40,000/- and he11oe,a.ddfiona1
cf Ra.17,l50D/- is awarded on the said
as only Ra.22,400/- has been awarded.

V’Vl’hercfi::me, the total compensation would now be

3%

=%’%”W’MfiW§ em mime mm Wwswmw .mm::s::2 E»-zmgawg mmwmw M g,2§mm=ém~; wmvmmma M mm

“%%:”§§§”§ ‘*;;’?§Wi§WW%§Wfi 33$’ mmmm §~fi%3EE~§

iwwwnxna WM’! uwwmuwmamlwm mmwmwa wwwfin WT Wkflflififlfiififlfl E’3!%’f¥ HEJWKE $1!” MKWRIRKA

Rl.10,13,500f- instead Of
enhanccd compensation shall carry mmréét A’
rate of 6% par axmum fmm ‘ Of-I

petition an realisation. an depgsst ‘

enhanced compensation, élcascd
1:01:11: 1* appellant. VA 3

A sa/…

:«%e:::g§§««% *Wa%wNa§%;%§% M mfifififfi §»%§;2%«§ WWWWW M .Wm.:} WMM WW£.’@%%§W% gm