Karnataka High Court
Gangamma W/O Late S Ravindra Kumar vs Gurusiddappa Father'S Name Not Known on 22 September, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, K.Govindarajulu
B.V. Veera Arav'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER.
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.1f;;' , u
AND
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JU:$:*:r;E I{§Gf)'VINDA12§AnIU1.U
M.F.A.l\TO. 6534 uC;E20_o5 fix'/m__
Between:
1. Smt.Ganga_rnma _ _ at
W/0. Late~'S.'Ra'vind=ra §{u:h1ar, 'V ..
Aged a1.;>eut 2i'j_years;_
2. SI'f1t..H_K.G.-..uA1"i}1;3.p(fl)1*1fI&t1"I1I'1'12§L,
Aged ._
VVKO. Late'Si}iVva1ingaiah__, -- f
M / C, 5.. Ratnndfa KL_1fnar,..
3. Master"Rakshi'E_h
,g_S/0.. . Late S..Ravindra Kumar,
Aged about 5 yea-rs,
Repres_ei:ted by his mother
V "A_r};d_Natuxra1 Guardian,
Smt,"'G.a1igafr1ma.
"'««..A11..__ar'e residing at Kodipalya,
Kalalughatta Post,
.A _ Neiamangala Taluk,
V " Bangalore District.
" Appellants
naiah and ~
, Advocates]
'g[Bysr1. K.S. Mailika '
And:
1. Sri. Gurusiddappa,
Father's name not known,
Prop. of Sri. Mallikarjuna Transport,
Cottonpet,
Bangalore~560 O53.
2. United India Insurance Co.,
Chikpet Branch, 15' Floor,
Lakshmi Complex, i
KR. Road,
Represented by its Manager,"=._
Bar1ga1ore~560 004:... *
V ; ; V, Respondents
(By Sri, Y.K. Sheshagiri Rao, 13Ld*i7ocatev.tor R2;
R1 - Notice dispensed w.it.£f1_11/o._dated"O7f.Q£t/2010}
i "J$=i==|=>l='5.'==l< "
This "M"[?A'"is?_Vfile«d--.,_U;f'S "-1"/'«3{1V}_ of MV act against the
Judgment anc1_}§a_war'd' d_at~ed;_ V2.8/03/V2005 passed in MVC No.
69/2000,. _on._ th'e:;;_file--»._ or the---...Pr1»f Civil Judge(SR.Dn} and
MAC';{'--Ill, 'B.angalore, "Rural . District, Bangalore, partly
allowing r the Claimllpeltition' for compensation and seeking
enhancement of oo_rn_pens'ati~on.
_ coining on for Hearing, this day,
PATXL. Jgdelivered the following:
JUDGMENT
appeal by the claimants is directed against A the judgment and award dated 28th March 2005, passed 'in ::M.V.C.No.69/ 2000, on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge _;§[Sr.Dr1) and Motor Accident Claims '1'r1bunal«~III, A I Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, (for short, Tribunal' ] for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of ?'2,10,000/ in favour of the claimants as against theirvclaiiri ?'O8.00 Lakhs, is inadequate.
2. The facts in brielare "ti'1at,'=. herein are respectively Ilriotgherlan'd"'son of the deceased Late Sri. S. They filed the claim petiti0nl't1nder._Sections oiffthe Motor Vehicles Act, gofiteriéiing:a{'_tabo§£"7:30 RM, on 21-03-1997. the deoVea.sed..V_.lS:..?f'.:Ra.v'indra Kumar was driving his autorickshavv No.KA-25/2211, slowly and ., _Ci1i't'i'f1E1llVl}' Bangalore Magadi Road. When he was near .Haroi1aiAlr,ilV a Bus bearing Registration No.KA- being driven by its driver, in a rash and "cegligerlt manner, dashed against the autorickshaw, to which, the amt iekshaw was badly damaged and W__,,,,..,......
d__'_'_M,,__...
in dispute. However, We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has grossly erred in arrivi11g:"«at~~--Vthe compensation payable towards loss of assessing the monthly income -of ?1,500/-- per month. In the that the deceased was years; the Post Mortem report; he was years.5§'I'herefore, having regard to and the year of accident, income of the deceased ' Out of ?2,500/--, if we his personal and living eXpeVnsels'; income comes to "€1,667/--. Taking the age-of deceased as 31 years, as per the RM. arid adopting multiplier of '16' as per the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's ease ACJ 1298), we re-determine compensation .. payable towards loss of dependency at ?3,20,064/-- (ie t "'._ll?"'1';'t:'>67/~ X 12 X '16') as against ?l,92,000/-- awarded by ' " it Tribunal. 6% I MMWM I :
1
7. Further, the Tribunal also erred not awarding reasonable compensation under'«.._l"'-the conventional heads. The deceased has left belrind wife, mother and a minor son. _Th.erefc.='re, ' ~ to the facts and circumstances"«of7th"el case,' we..ar_{(fard'~a sum of 310,000/-- towards-..:los_s of "love,an_d°affection; a sum of ?10,000/-- towV.ardsi"transfiortation'"of-'dead body and funeral expenses; - towards loss of life expectancy/ sum of $10,000/_ towards V ._ ..t'r1e facts and circumstances of the casegglas the appeal filed by appellants is. 'part_.__.'Fhe impugned judgment and award 7 gated. g2gar.ntTg'M_arch 2005, passed in M.V.C.No.69/2000, if =ofi=v~th'e"Tii;1;='A'§or the Prl. Civil Judge[Sr.Dn] and Motor Acci~de'n.t.VC"2Iaims Tribuna1--III, Bangalore Rural District, iVBla.ngalore,. is lhnereloyn a sum of l$f3,60,064/-- as against 32,10,000/-- awarded by the %;M 5, Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till tiiefdpate of realization. The break--up is as follows:
Towards Loss of Dependency Towards Loss of love and affection... 9 _ ____ Towards Loss of estate / loss of i-0,00"Q_/~-__"'~._ expectancy ' " ' T Towards ioss of COI1SOI'ti11I11_ xi ?' 10,000/-- Towards transportation ofgdead 3 iOf.;O00/-- body and funeral expenses" " "
*mTAI+ T he s.so.oe4/-
The Insa;rang¢.vCorr1ppany_isfdireoted to deposit the enhanced... of i'{p'1",5V(;)',"(");64/-, with interest thereon" at four weeks from the date of VVreceiptv_ofi:Vcopybf the judgment and award. .. imr:tiediat~e'ly such deposit by the insurance outfwof the enhanced compensation of sum of ?'50,000/-- with proportionate iritere'st,~.«:shal1 be invested in Fixed Deposit, in any we Nationaiized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the appellant - wife of deceased, for a period of five if WWW"
years, renewable for another five years, With___ liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest periodieai4!._dV'.'w--Vv A sum of ?'5O,OO0/W with proporti_o4nateAT:"iri'terest~,.> shall be invested in Fixed Deposit, 'in: 1. or Scheduled Bank, in the narize the son of the deceased, till majQrityV,"~-faithsiibertyV reserved to first ap.peIIa.n't the interest periodicaily for the ' The '€50,064/~ with proportioriajtferinterest'j'.-shad:f,be--,:reIeased in favour of the app¢11ans§igrime.tiggiqeaiateiy. 'Office ta accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge Sd/-
Judge }BMV*