Karnataka High Court
M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Radha A Kamath on 17 March, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2012 AAC 130 (KAR), 2011 (4) AIR KANT HCR 292
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN DATED THIS THE 1711* DAY OF " THE I-ION'BLE MR. Jusnc'EA'K.'sP_E'DDHA:§'<R,aQ7" AND THE HON'BI.E MR. B. S M.F.A. No.7'L11.5/2004*?"/'u}"?4t14]C)4'(MVj *
13E'IwEEN:-a_'' 4 4 M/s United Irilfiga Company _Ltd_., _ Divisional 'Officer, R.B.CQmplex, ' V Kodial bait.
Mangaloh: " V _ 1 p Represented V. . Rcpresenteti' 'V , The Deputy Manager ";Re"giona_l tOfi'1ee' 'V'. 1" ._Ba_1f.gaioi'e.+l '~_ "
u3__y' Srl _ALM.i_'fenkatesh, Adv.) AND:
._ I3 n_1t"'Radha A.I{amath ' Aged about 57 years W/0 late Achutha D.Kamath
2. Thrivikrarn A.Kamath Aged about 31 years S /0 late Achutha D.Kamath «---£/ .....APPELLANT Both are Residing at Hithen Apartments Vii'. Road Mangalore
3. Mrs. Vijaya S.Rao S / 0 late Sumanth Rao Anupam Advertisers M.J.Ra0 Centre Dongarakeri Mangalore
4. Abdul Lathif S/0 H.M0ideen . .
Koppal compound 5 Kudroli " 0 Mangalore H
5. Bharath Rai}'€3h'ett)?~. % Guthuj' I-louse 'poéft, , _.
Bantwai Talufk. ---- ' ....RESPONDENTS {Bysn Bopayina.and'Giridhar, Advs. for R1 & R2 R13._§and=R5 served 8: unrepresented. V. _ R4 L service held isufficient] if is filed under Section 173(1) of MV ACT " .ag;i;nS't.ti2,,e éudgment and Award dated 30.4.2004 passed in ti»/IVC.No.1'Sf_I.5/2001. on the file of the Prl. District Judge and M'embe'r.' M.A.C.T--I. D.K.. Mangalore. awarding compensation of Rs.4,09,500/~ with interest at 8% P.A. 0' 0*M;F,A.1§:o.7414;o4; .. BEN?
00 0' "M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional officer.
R.B.Cc>rnpIex, y
5. Bharath Raj Shetty Pajeer Guthu House Pajeer post _ Bantwal Taluk ....RESPONI)£+3NTS"'--_ {By Sri Bopanna and Giri, Advs. for R3 8: R2} This MFA is filed under S€(.'.IAlV0I'1 173'g"1;-5;?Mi/'--Aeff"
against the Judgment and Award dated' 30.4.2004" passed in MVC.NO. 1734/2001. on the file of the l_"r},.. ~Distriet'Judge__ai1d Member. M.A.C.T--I. D.K., l'Ma':1galore._--vr "»awarcliing~_u compensation of Rs.4._3l ,700,/-- with interest ans:ivV8"[gP7VA_ These appeals V r'cQmi11g""'org'* orders ~'LVhis day. SREEDHAR RAO. J .. d--e_1i:vere-_d the f@_l_iQviIing:
J U as both ="one Narasimha Kamath and Devadas Kalmatla motor vehicle accident. The legal ' represemtatiyes 0l""'t'h'e deceased have filed two separate _ petitlnns_&.lsee.l_{i"n"g tzompensation under Section l63{a} of i~;«1q£¢31~ v¢1fi;53_eé Act. 1988.
2-{A The tribunal in respect of death of Narasimha l{_ar__natl1".awa1'ded compensation of Rs.4.3l.700/-- and in respect of death of Devadas Kamath awarded compensation " Rs.4.09,500/--. The deceased persons were travelling in a A/at 6 I63(a). It is therefore, in terms of Section l63[a) the owner of the jeep shall have to pay 50% comperisatiori and the owner of the car and the insurer of the car have to pa§'--.»50% of the conrpensation awarded in both the cases. Therefore. the order of the tribunal directing the insurer*'..'ot' the pay the entire compensation is unterlable. 'me"same set aside. 50% compensation has to by the insurer of the car and 505./Qiélby t;he."cv\__mer tiilefieefy. In" t both the cases the income of ttl1.ex:Advec'e.ased 'p'ei*.sp1is'§ is stated at 40,000/-- each per aririttimf 15,/V'c3i"<'l"'1-s':l€,o'be deducted. The loss of deperideneyv would'be::Rs.'Zl6».,70t)/"irthoth the cases.
--. --. 'hes taken the multiplier considering the zigeaéctf the":-deceased. In View of the ruling of the__§St1preme iri Ramesh Singh and another Vs. another reported in 2008 ACJ 814, the Qtf"the,,:_cie.tj~ef1deI1t:.s to be taken. if the deceased are yotingeifj" the dependarits. in that View in Vt"M.)/'.C...i'Jd.l734/O1 the total} loss of dependency would be multiplier i.e., Rs.2,40,300/~ plus statutory __a.rnouI1t, oi"Rs.4,500/-- i.e.. 2,441,800/M. In lVl.V.C.No. 1815/01 the total loss of dependency would be Rs.26,700x1l 45/ muitiplier i.e.. 2.Q3,7"0O/v» plus statutory arr10t1.__1f1£: of Rs.4.500/W which would Come to Rs.2.98,200/m and amounts assessed in the appeals shall be t§vi':.i1'i_ interest at 610/o from the date of petiiigisn till .p;a'yr:iien£;'-50% "
the compensation shaii be payabiegby :_t;i1e:'iri'se€rei"'r)'f and the petitiioners shaii ;i'ec:_0ver tithe baiafie'e__V_V50% of Compensation from the owner jeep} ._ avjgnount in deposit be t.1'ansI"e1Ted'._'_.to the §.f.!'vib'"L.1_I'.";}'1.l.".'f§)i' payment. The excessive amount in depgsit ishéfll ji*-eimbursed to the 3~P13f?I1ant--ins£%\1~e'i'{.it' the' «.¥a1'ppea'I'sVVVet1"e disposed of.
" ..... ., \: Sd/..
JUDGE Sfifim 'bkp 4. iudqe