Karnataka High Court
G M Umadevi W/O Lt B C Shivaram vs V Anand S/O Venkataramaiah on 20 September, 2008
fietween:
In THE HIGH center or KARIIATAKA AT BA!_§£'zAL€¢- . Dated: 20"' day of Scptfimher u 2 Present , * mm aoarnm m.wm1cm_ v.eem1.A _ aoumm m.maT2§f.E._ §,._r_f._4 No. 1 . x WV/1QWLz=afE B,<::s§;ivARp.§§A:vw 2 B,,'s.1i<A{3HLI-«'V._, - -
s/0 LA'I'E-- B;C;*SH§VAR!I«.-M AP§>L.LNo.2 M1N'0'R.. REPR. BY NATURAL' GUARDIAN MOTHER 4;jAF'PL.No."1.__ ' v.':__"~B;QTEi,_ARE R 'vA--N'o.630, Uiéswaxgs 'A' MAIN ROAD " ~ . am flwcix, JAYANAGAR 'BAN{}A1.g0RE~56o 082 ....APPELLAN'I'S A (By 'a.§;;§.sREEN1vAsA1AH--AI)V) 7v.ANAND s/0 VANKATARAMAIAH swam MAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD WHITEFIELD BANGALORE ------ 560 066 2 THE MANAGER M] S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD # 67'] E, 13" FLOOR, REDDY COMPLEX WHITEFIELD ROAD .' "
MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE - 550 043 (BY SR1 O.MAI-IESH--ADV FOR R2}. jg -
--oOo--[ M.I3'.A is am under Section 'i:7i:=-3(1) o£cthéi1x&.V A¢t f c against the Jucigacnt and "1'/'$3001 passed by the MACT, BaI1g'&!<_ire_V city--- No. 2274/2002. ,Z _i_~.'»c *» ~ This M.F.A cominjgi cf: ff§r:iica3?ii1:§,"?I'V_'s3zci'oI'c the Court this day, upon J delivered the foiiowinggv ' ._ .L c, fact the quantum of compeccaificfi *~ Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, :Baxigal6re."- M.V.C No.4934/2001 the have this appeal sec]-dug The claimants filed claim petition under 'V V' 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claim' ing for the death of B.C.Shivara.m. The first "claimant is the wife and sccond claimant is the minor son of deceased I--3.C.Shivaram. The accident in k question and the death of the deceased in accident are not disputed.
3. It is undisputed that theVdeceased''v:ajs '4 " = as Police Constable in Police date of his death, his as Certificate Ex.P-7 was He 45 years. The the loss of dependency has:'taken.A'oi11§.':;t}ie-fiiet Rs. 3786/ -.
It is loss of gross salary as on the date of ''taken into consideration and the only can be allowed are the 'statutoi-'nyi dedactioiis A such as Income Tax, Professional «pa. V 1n..s;;;te,t'cfitius, the Tribunal has proceeded to take on.1y~.. Thus, the Tribunal has committed error whiie computing the loss of dependency. dd It is also contended by the learned counsel for 'T " claimants that the deceased was aged 45 years and he had another 13 years of service, therefore, he would b have earned one or two promotions superannuation and also higher salary service on account of annual K V' pay revisions. Therefore, the ineemehfoivr 1 ._ computing Ioss of dependeneji"..shoiiid__ "higher " L' than what is mentionedzirl ;-- "-»
5. Learned eou.n'se_1* ~fo::_ remained absent. Therefofevg of the matter. 6; " c:ef1sit1efebie"_'fo1*ee in the contentions of for The Apex Court in the (}aVVV';w Q of Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. .85 o:s;rem~:ea in 200314) s.c.e 162 in h' V thus: -
. T._"'14. The amount of compensation
-- indisputably should be determined having *~ retgard to the pecuniary loss caused to the ; dependents by reason of the death of the victim. It was necessary to consider the A earnings of the deceased at the mac of the accident. Of course, further (sic~:future) prospect is not out of bound for such consideration. But the same should be founded on some legal principle." % The said decision squarely applies to this "A4 Having regard to the fact that the years of service he would have ai:4A1e§3st'V:vone or two promotions. He would heve increments, pay revisions' Therefore, in addition i.oV_i11e.<gi'o'ss:' fiaemissed in Ex.P--7, some more tio to reckon his average loss of dependency; .'ic:':oii.sideration all these factorsg Z _tO that the average mommy' i_Iicr:)II1e... should be taken at Rs."1jD,'GQO/-x isaniiual income should be taken 3as %ies.ii,[2o¢,eoo/--. If one--third of this is deducted expenses, the balance works--out _ to I7¥s.8€):,€)()i"}/--. A. , 4_ 7;" "Having regard to the age of the deceased, the multiplier applicable would be 13 which is T applied by the Tribunal. In the light of this the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,4(),()()O/ . In addition to this, the claimants are alse entitled to & Ordered by the Tribunal.
Rs.40,000/-- under conventional heads. Thu$v,~.,V_tI§:e* claimants are entitled to a total [jef Rs.10,80,00{)/-- as against Rs.6,57.,4_Q8/ V the appeal deserves to be allowed"-« ~
3. Accordingly, the the compensation to V 'interiast at 6% per annum from payment.
The enhanced within eight weeks'; A' of a copy of this judgmerm and disbursement of enhagrlced comféevhsation shall be in the same Sdl-2"
Iudqe Sd]-9 A MP-bpy4108 hag';