The Managing Director Ksrtc vs Kamalamma W/O Late Krishna on 26 May, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director Ksrtc vs Kamalamma W/O Late Krishna on 26 May, 2008

Bench: Manjula Chellur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA     &  *
DATED THIS THE 26th D.Aﬁ§'M{) F:"ﬁ1 A¥     " J 

PRESENT  T % A
THE HONBLE ms 
 ANBL   Q  
THE H()N'BLE   EIAGARAJ
   my)
BETWEEN:  J %«  % 
  

KSRTC A % .   
K.II.ROAl)   j 

BANGALORE_~+ _566_027 APPELLANT

..' . {3yS»3§}iT  

17  WIO LATE KRISHNA
"AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RI"AT':.T%NGII\IAKALLU VILLAGE

 «  11031.1

. L RAMANAGARAM TALUK
  BANGALORE RURAL ms':

kT   T K RAMU s/0 LATE KRISHNA

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

R/AT THENGINAKALLU VILLAGE
KYLANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARAM TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST



3 KUM LALEETI-IA BIO LATE KRISHNA

AGED A%UT 29 YEARS

RIAT NO. 19. VI MAIN ROAD I 

Kl'. AGRAHARA V'
MAGADI MAIN ROAD

BANGALORE

4 RAJESI-I s/0 LATE 
AGEDABOUT 18YE.A.RS_....   *
RIAT No.1o,v1   
K.P.AGRAI-{ARA      '-
BANGALORE_  * % .._R;ESPONDENTS

This   APPEAL is ﬁll #3 173 of
MV act agmttine  award dated: 2.9.92 posed in
me No.lB4'L/1999 at the CIVIL JUDGE (mom .9;
ADDLMALT. RAMANAGARANI, Partly alarm; the cum

 

  Fm Apped mm as: for FINAL
   MANJULA CIIELLUILL, delivered the

_ % JUDGMENT
 Itmmnmispacetauudeeeased Krhhnadmhand arm

T  and father efthe other respomlenm, dieé ha a mowr

 m the year 1997 at Baguio;-e-Mysore Road near

 

Karavali Bar aw Rmam-ant. The 



approached the Aeciderris Tribunal, seeking   ~ V.

untimely death of deceased Kr% who was worwtg"   

T depammnc a on the date mm death; he   % *    

income as 123.5636/~ am! the aggas   

compensation of  -   k of V

co  Aggrieved     Em:
seriously clmﬁenged the alone.

ofthe Tribunal. ' a L  

" f   of  pertahlmg to the
details  opmon am we need not go
into an: _queQaH|_ a3_iE:  nmonea on-aer regarding the

  mpmnue for an accident because

  driving ofthe bus.

  comizg to the qumﬂon of qtumtum of

 for the respondents. in View of the mum Bench

T hi the case of Union of India mil Others Vs.K.S.Lakshmi Kumar and Others, reported in ILRV-2900 Kama Page 3889 - Paragraph 16, the V. compensation though calculated applying V' proper, but it could not have been the years. According to her, up to: the compensation has to be assessed tile' 'V and after his rem-ement, for the balance of years ought to of the above remmm The relevant. -.16' of the judgement reads as antler: A' " ' _ 16.' _Whe:=:e inultipﬁer applicable is .. 'higher' the number of years of V' ifservice the deceased had before _V , satperaonuatiom the contribution to the (or [ms of éepentleney) cannot 'olivio1[:sly be calculated with the reference to income, ibrtlae entire period . of multiplier. Let us illustrate. If a person ' .__gged 56 years (whose age of superannoationis60years)diedinan accident, leaving him surviving bk wife and two children, how shouﬂ the total loss ofdepemlency be calculated ? Let us assmoe that his salary was Rs.6000.00 and after retirement, his pension would be Rs.3,00t}.0¢}. Under the Davies method accepted and adopted by the Supreme 5 Court, the appﬂeahle muﬁwer wﬁl be'9'. But, cieemsed would have got he would get only pwon. If expemies ofthe decemed is_ene_ ' eontzribution to the ' period of service (4 ymrs A "

have been 12.s.400a/+: (am as A e 'g 2000). But obvioly the family would not hive Viteen R}s'.4ﬁ (iiPi'--

after he retirement, the Rs.3000/- per one contribution to on}lyto be of ' taken as pei'1ao?IniI;_h._fer'the; entire period V ---- e--e!'.9' multiplier. It has Rs._'-4000/-- per month for s1ae"ﬁTI.'et% (when he would have been -in and 138.2099/-- yer mentit for ﬁve years (When ' " _ he weul¢i"l:ave received pension). The " I in the above illustration have to be applied ﬁx tlﬁ wee. 5; that View of the matter, we are of the opinion that ' the loss of depemfaney has to be taken as 3M" 0!' the V' ofthe deceased and for the balance ofyears, it has to be V ealculated on the pemion wfﬁeh the deemed would have earned after the retirement. Therefore. ﬁor the ﬁrst 10 years. the loss of / tlependency would come to Rs.3,758/ x 10 X 12 = A. 3 we take the loss of dependency based on the have drawn after his ma-ement, his 'ma Rs.2818f- my mouth. Therefore, re: the em it am, 3%," 0 0 Rszs1sI~ per month. which wouid'§§me :0 xii = V Rs.67,632i-. Having regard 'fto_"the gage $00.0 vjehiidren Le. 20 & 18 years who had dewed went away from their on the date of death of would be just and and Rs.15,000!~ towards 10500: to the children. Rs.5,000!- awarded. funeral expem remains for which the respondents are V L X oepenaamy : Rs.4,58,960.90 _ T If)L§3ss ofﬁependancy :Rs. 67,632.00 x --oI If£) Consortium :Rs 10,000.00

iv) Loss oflove and affection : Rs. 15 .00 Rs..5,43,592.89 Together with interest @ 6% has to be paid by the Accordingly, the following order: V

6. The appeal is allowed hi piilt entitled for a compensation ef _ 'V *' interest @ 5% p.a.fmm the date or une't:ee'ee¢e es deposit togetlwr with costs ' of the amount and the share of is no need to interfere er The appellant - KSRTC re eight weeks.

Iudg-'J3' Sd/-

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court