The Branch Manager The Oriental ... vs Smt Renukamma W/O Late Krishnashetty, ... on 8 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

The Branch Manager The Oriental ... vs Smt Renukamma W/O Late Krishnashetty, ... on 8 November, 2010

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

MFA No. 4504/2009
C/W MFA CRGB-.>l 9/2010

his mother and natural guardian IS' respondent

All are residing at
Kuruvangi Village
Chickmagalur Talluk   

4. Sri. Ranganatha Shetty
S / o Ranga Shetty
Aged 38 years
R / at Kuruvangi Village
Chickmagalur Taluk

( Exparte in Trial Court}  g - 0'

5. Sri. Ananda Shetty   -- 
S / o Ganga She"ttylC '
Aged 38 years if"
R/at Narigluddlanal
J yothinagar .Po*st<.; ., _,
Chickiriagalinj Taliik'

ham Village.    

[Exp arte in Trial rt}   .,  2 V."
 »   l K1  ...Respondents
{Byz Sri: Jagadish,.G;Ktinjiar;._Ad*(r. for R1 and R2]

V.  Th'is'¢.Mi_scellaneo'us----First Appeal is filed under section 173(1)
of Aet against the judgment and award dated 20/09/2008
passed i'n.NlVC;N'o,654/06 on the ﬁle of Addl. District Judge and
Memher;'_Addvl.;'--«MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal Fast Track Court

  V»: I, Chickinagaliir, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,35,000/-- with

interest   from the date of the petition till realization.

" gyi.-F:.p..pcRoi3'.;ﬁo. 19/20 10

   

 1:'; A Renukamma,
/0 Late Sri.Krishnashetty.

in " - .0  A A «W " --. ~ Aged 46 years,

 2. Kunrlndramma,
D/o Late Srilirishnashetty,
Aged 26 years,



MFA N0. 4}p5U4/2009
C/W MFA CR€g)B"-is 79/2016

3. Chandrashekara,
8/ 0 Late Sri.Krishnashetty,
Aged 18 years,
Since minor rep. By his mother   .
N / Guardian, 15' Cross Objector/ lst Appellant 

All residents of Kuruvangi Village, _  »_ ,   
Chikmagalur Taluk 8: District.     : <v--;'L'L'.';ﬂSf:OB'35'lE.(;TCDl3'x.S

{By Sri.M.S.Raghavendra Prasad,'Adyocate]  '- A
AND:  A I

1. Sri.Ananda Shetty,
S/o Ganga Shetty,  V
Aged about 39 years.'  _ 2: --~'
R/ o Nariguddanahaltiﬁﬁillage,   ._
Jyothinagar Post, _.Chikrnagalfu'r, 6'  V :
[Owner of TVS V.ic1:oi'e.; _, 6 V  "  
Motorcycle Beaﬁrzg N o5.fKA--'i~8:/L 1162"]

2. The Branch_lVi"anag.er;f"~.V° .  
Oriental Insurance Co. "Ltd,  A
Chikmagalur. .c '  "

 "   , _ : Respondents

"(By Sri'.'M.V_,pPoonacha;vAdv. for R2]

 "rhis1VMi?.A;c'_m1§oin MFA No.4504/2009 ﬁled U/Order 41 Rule
22 ofi'Cl4'C R/wf--Sec.j'lv?3[l} of MV Act, against the judgement and

1VV..__aVward Dated: 2O'--7(}9--.2OO8 passed in MVC No.664/2006 on the file
 'of'Additio'n_al District Judge 81 Mact, Chikmagalur, partly allowing
"athe 'claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of

' " " compensation';  "

,3":{;l'i"§~§i"ar}§'gL.i~:g_sgC0I1'1l1'lg on for Admission this day, the court
* fdye_livered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is by the insurance company challenging the judgement and award passed in MVC No. 664/2006 by '< MFA No. 4504/2009 C/W MFA CROB I9/2010 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chick1nagalur;~..y'_:'i~fI'he ground taken up by the insurance company selecting the multiplier, the TribunalMcomrni'tted--:an'V"eri"or considering the age of the deceased. V7-It is a case of death then the multiplier of age of-it the parents should be taken. Inpthefinst_anthcase.,A the mother is aged about 42 years and"ac'cording1y"the:%multiplier should have been 14. As against :hé 'sg§.m_¢«£11¢ has selected 17 considering 'decéealsled.' Hence the learned counsel submits [hvé«..'évpp6Ei1 by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 4' _ T V 'T

2. th'e'"ca--seeis called twice none appears for the respondent_» " at

3. Theclaim is made by the mother. sister and of the deceased. Mother's age as declared in the Tint.'*..';clﬁm"petition is 42 years and therefore it is appropriate to ' talbethe multiplier of the mother. It is not stated properly by Tithe claimants as to the occupation of the deceased. Accordingly the Tribunal has taken notional income at l< MFA No. 4504/2009 C/W MFA CRO$ I9/2010 Rs.100-- per day which comes to 13,000/-- per rnonth;~..._:'§t is not true that the claimants have not piaced or evidence in respect of the income the_-'decedaseddei it stated in the petition that the deceased the.iov§ner motor bike bearing No. KA~ 18/_v'1-1.62,' iwhichp V it along with his friends. shoWs.u:th_a't--»_.phe 'auras, necessarily earning an income more today. Accordingly his income would be_:".3,0O:t)'/9'iit:11ce«.V?;h_¢; caicvulation would be 3000 x 12 x 140 3i.f55i;OQ_0;/4:".in*hich would be loss of dependency;

4. CornpensAation'~.Vun.dVer remaining are undisputed. Cfheis_iAV:ac,cording1y--«disposed of. Amount in deposit be transrrzitted -Accidents Claims Tribunal. i'ii;--piiiV\r.i'm ems 109i/2010 "ii objection filed by the claimant for enhancement of V' dfiiedjicompensation on the ground that the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month. Since he was Working as a labour contractor for several Coffee Curing companies in Chickamagalur. In respect of his claim that the deceased was °< MFA No. 4504/2009 c/w MFA CROB-,19/2010 earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, it is not examinecijdiétnhfrbdody and not produced any document to that effect. vviewv same the question of enhancement o«fdco'n2pe'nsation'.does' not arise. Hence the cross objection _stande_ dismisse.t_:1,t " "

bsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court