Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager The United India ... vs Sundaramma @ Sundra Laxmamma on 22 March, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2010
: PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE N.1:.1=A_'1f:1~1;. ' %
ANB
THE :»1oN'BL1: MR.JUsT1cE:'H.S¢;iEMi>aiv'NA. " A J
M.F.A.No. 8693131» 2004mm
BETWEEN:
The Branch"Manager*,~,f ¢ _ ' V.
The United'¥n i1ia insgzrahce Cv0j.'~Ltd. ,f'
Branch ~ ' '
K.M.f2oaCC;". '
Chiii1113§51113F.- .,
Repfeseilted its .
"She .Deputg-- .
United India .I'11.su.r_a'npe _.Co . Ltd. ,
Regional Office' _ " _
No.25; SI1ank_.a1'ana.rayana Building.
f ' M..G.R0z":'1'dA,V V"
V' ' Bangalore 4' 5.60 001 .
... Appellant
A Si*iv;T§:!.,V"{v3.E}'o¢3'T1acha. Advocate}
'S}nt.Sundaramma @ Sandra Laxmamma,
W / o.La1:e Sathyanarayana Shetty,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation: House wife,
%:»»~"""""
3
E
3:
b.)
12/0. Beside N.H.206.
Kahdasa Nagara,
Kadur Town,
Kadur Taluk.
2. Rajakumar Suklecha.
S / o.Keevraj Suklecha.
Aged about 28 years.
R/o.Yarnrnedodd1 Road, : '
Kadur Town,
Kadur'I'a1uk. ._ = ~
M. . . Rt'3$pQf11._r:1er1t_$
(By Sri. S.I\/Iahesh, Advocate R52 se'we_di
This MFA is fi1ed"<--U.i}*'SA '17€{['1} Act against the
judgment and award dated: 23';O8.20O'«3.-.. passed in MVC
No.93/2003 on the File o£«the=Civi1.Ju'd'ge'fSr.'Dvn) & MACT.
Kadur. awarding "-eon§;pens_a.tion°.'of 'Rs.3,53,000/-- with
interest at 6%i--_p.a§?'a_nd_ dire-eting_the'Appel1ant herein to pay
the same arid seeki-1*1g__ redtx,_ction'4of«compensation.
T ondfor' Vfllriearing this day, N.K.
PATIL , de1iVe1'*E:d_sthe iollowiiigz
'eFa&fiéM£Nh
, xfhis isV"ari:éippV§=a1 filed by the Insurer questioning
the of compensation awarded by the learned
d"1'rdge'*ti;;."'(VSr.Dn) and Motor Accidents Claims
Ksadur, (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal'
for in the impugned judgment and award dated -
A23;os.20o4 passed in MVC I\¥o.93/2O03.
%/
2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has
awarded a sum of Rs.3,53,000/-- with interest_,vat'a6%V
per annum from the date of petition iii} .
deposit, as against the claim of the .c1aimant" H'
of Rs.10,00,000/«~, on account Inf
deceased Sri. Satyanarayana.,:Shett3r," in the0'~.ro'a:_d""traffic * 0'
accident. Being aggrieyed by" 0 j'n'dgrn.ent,,_= and
award, the Insurer appeal, for
reduction of that, the
amount
case are;
xivife of the deceased Sri.
Satyanarayaiaa w.,'.'esh'et£y'.V she being the legal
.°'rep1'esentatiVe odfflwthe deceased Sri. Satyanarayana
Vfiied a claim petition before the Tribunal
under ___vse.c0tio0n 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation
er,Re.i,o,oo,o0o/~, on account of the death of the
"deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that,
10.4.2003 at about 8.30 a.rn. the deceased was
f/2/-~
returning to the house from his shop on the left side of
NH. 206 road in Kadur town and when he was_g.goi_r1g
iI1f1'Ol'1t of Amar Printers on NH 208, at that .
first respondent was coming from». "
motor cycle bearing
rash and negligent rnanner 'xiv-ithout oi:servi1dgA,..tra;I°fie _ r
rules and hit to the deoeaseVd**'d:ireetiy.. llltievvtoppirhe said
accident, deceased stilstaiiied 'injuries on his
head. Immediately, to hospital.
where he .thl_e::"i.nj.1.1ries. The said claim
petition" ';lllrVV.:"Vf0r«""Consideration before the
latter assessing the oral and
documentary _evi.d"enAc;=_e and other material available on
" = or.,file'";:r..fias'tallowed"theelaim petition in part and awarded
of Rs.3,53,000/- with interest at 6%
p.a-;..__fro:n date of petition till the date of deposit.
aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the
'~A?£r1'sunrer has presented this appeal, on the ground that
,/m_/
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exeessive
and it requires reduction.
4. We have heard the learned
appellant and learned counsel forrfirst
5. The principal submis"sion._'_'leantfasseti_
learned counsel for the lnsL1rer_pis has" V
committed an error, assessing'-»r,_the' élirieomie of the
deceased at ealculating the
COII1pt'31'lS8.'Ei()'.1v'1¢.L and the
sarneis on he submitted that
the award is liable to be
Inodifiedph A it
this, learned counsel for the
'l V. ""Aelai'-fiiianti inter-ali'a',"'contended and submitted that, the
I e~..'lV'ribu11al«r...v"oIi=_.proper consideration of the material
availab_le' .on file, has awarded just and reasonable
VV"'eornpe11-sation under different heads and therefore,
'interference by this Court is not called for.
5/§i/
L
7. After having heard the learned counsel for both
parties and after careful perusal of the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunai';
that, the income of the deceased_ the '
Tribunal at Rs.8,000/~---- per mounthqfor
loss of dependency is on higher side----._V Iti'.-:-3 the ease of
the claimant that the deceased aged' about 60 years
and doing retaii at Kadur and
earning Rs; ihere is some
substance by the claimant.
But atnyfldocumentary evidence to
provevythe earner. having regard to the age and
occupation" of 'the "deceased and since the accident
occurred the year 2003, we re--asses the income of
ijlifiu Rs.5,000/-- per month to meet the ends
ot"j«usti_ce.. of which, if 1/3115 is deducted towards the
personal expenses of the deceased, the net income
'comes to Rs.3,334/- per month. The deceased was aged
~-afbout 60 years and the appropriate Multipiier
//2/»
I
£.
appiicabie to the instant case is 9, in View of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sa.rlva'a'\T:ferzna
and other Vs. Deihi Transport Corpo;*at4it}z:1:_;:'V~1'arzdp
another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298,~
claimant is entitled for a fiat
(Rs.3,334/«« X 12 X 9) as against
by the Tribunal. So far as therciomypensation awarded by
the Tribunal towards_uVCon'%§ren_tionai~theads is concerned,
the same is just not Call for
interferen_c.ei.--..4 is entitied for
higher corripensationitowardsnioss of dependency, she
has not "filed._.Cifoss"~._objection for enhancement of
corrzpensatiori in7'the appeal. Therefore, We do not find
goodagrouindisiv to interfere with the impugned
passed by the Tribuna}.
regard to the facts and circumstances of
thpe as stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurer
'qis*di'smissed as devoid of merits.
Draw the awar accordingly.
W
The statutory deposit made by the Insurancef.~~--__
Company shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwftlhq "
.
