The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Meenaxi on 27 September, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Meenaxi on 27 September, 2010

Bench: Aravind Kumar

 

ms: THE HIGK covnxr or KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT mamas»; AT DHRAWA33  7
DATED THIS THE 271% my 01:' saprsmsgxevgfzti 16.. R

BEFGRE    
HOZWZBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVINI3 kiﬁraﬁati  
IVI.F.A. No.2o129/z¥Q1G_"m§v1'TT»._     
M.F.A. No.2o130@;01o gram)' 

IN MFA.2o129/2010  
BETWEEN: ' '

THE DIVISIONAL MA1'\I'A"c;E}2 .'  --  '
THE 0RIE§NT'A}%iVkg-%QS1jRN€Cf5 COMPAN~'¥~LTD
BIVISIONAL. oI%:j§'_14;f:E:, _K__ER.LOE3}<AR ROAD
BEZLGAUM, ';HRO'uGH'RE:G:--QNA'L MANGER
:2EG:0NAL,Q'FF1:cE;, sL?.M'AN«GAL;; COMPLEX
LAM:'NG*E@.:~;:,R0AgD, HU}3L.I _

 _ _    ' - ...;5xPPELLAN'i'
(By Sri. S "K KAYfxKA}.d§éTH«ADVOCATE)

Am):

  $i'\§i~.'i'1'.: ;%21:%ENA§§_1~w;.r;; VASAN'E' DESAE,

 _A'<;g  ymas, occ: aougamow
 »  'R,z'Vo15;A:M'«vNA@AR, AT BELGAUM
 .'%3¥S:5Tv:.;E§;iCVLC:;:%-Eﬁvfzzl'

AE";:'é'}P§I;E;':V%<:E€: ':g?*:'.sa3AY:xK gm: '2,zAs;Am 93%:
V AGE:  YEARS :><:c:m,. 950 RAM Nszimg
 A'E"':BE:fi,;GAU§:§,§§ST:BE2L{Eu%U3'vE



_ '§<_'z§:2s:;a§ ififﬁéﬁﬁ  %?5§;E§;%E'~§?'E" §E:§£i

 J.':§i{__}.~Ef :23 YEARS <}C{i.:S'?U§ENT',
€259 RM»-E ;I\?;%{}AR

 A'?:BELGAUM, §1ST:BELGAZ}M

 SHE} MELHABALESHWRR N,NALAmR,

AGE MAJGR7 QCC; BUSENESSK R;"€) N{Ih;:"£Q, =
AT: E{®§:%YA{3~§, P{}ST':DEVAR{7%i,



 

TQ: EIIAAIAEUR,
DESTBELGAUM
 RESPONDENTS

(B3; Sri. A A AIULLA ADVOCATE FUR <:;E~E1--, SR1 SANTHOS-H M. EAEAJ1 ADVOCATE FOR E2 AND E3; NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VCO DtI§4.O9.1O) THIS IAEA IS FILED U555 173(2) 0? MV ACT,v..-I988, AGAINST THE IIOEOMENE AND AWARE DATED: 18--{}8».--.:2'O§)9 PASSED IN Mvc NO.111'7/200? ON THE FILE: OF' TI3I.EII:A:£3D'L.. DISTRICT JUDGE AND AIJOL. E'v'EACT., EELOAOAL.$'AwAI§-EIj'II.O_"' _ THE COMPENSATION OF' %12,?2,IsT2/-- AL«i'}_NG{f.. wI.iI'::4.j INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 3% P'I33'R ANNOM F'RO'EvI§'_I"HEI DATE " 'I OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA.20130/2010 {IVEV} BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER _ THEE ORIENTAL INsIIgANcE"cOI;-.r,*m.

DIVISIONAL OFFICEL I<;II2L=.OsI<;AIe..'I:z§)'A13, EELOAUM, THROUG}~'1'R_EGI.QVN:AL MANA;{}ER, REGIONAL OEICE, SU_MANC;?.="§L.A C€€1\z'§'§?LEX, LAMv1N<}TON'IaC-.AI3, IiiI}E:A,I ' = '- ' _ * ..AI:>I>ELLAI\IT (By Sri. S K KZA_YAKA};vfE_A'I5H".é'IL}V{)CA'§'§} AND: Al ._ $'}»7IT.3 QADNEA éAI~;§IIAI\II<;AE OEEA:

" ~.A<;IE :i§o5{E_ARS, OCC ; HOOEEIIOIE 'IAf{}R'£<, E;-'I5; ";v..EA:i.;I: j;IA.OAE, A'? : EELOAIIIIA, . 'D§S'E"';'vB§Eé§LG.;iIi;,?'MI KIIAIIAE. R:-%_I*<;'§§AS E§;'£} ; SEANEAE EEEAI5 AOE ;--.'32°IIEAEE, {}{Z€;' ; E§'E=R"»£§€:E E5512'; EAIAA AIAOAEI BI'3;L{Z-:I'~'IU?2§ W SAFETI'. MELAN S/Q ; EIIEESE EEEAIIEIIAE 25&€i}'E: : 38 YEARS? {ECCL : HOUSEIFEQL-B WORK, ; R/O : RAM NAG./JIR, BELGAUM EOAIAEI NUEIIAN Em : EI--IAI\E<_AE_ EESAI AGE : 28 YEARS, GCC : STUBENT, R50 : RAM NAQEAR, BELCEAUM :3: §I< KUMAR RAGHAVENDRA SJO : SHANKAR QESPIE AGE 1 24 YEARS, OCC 1 SEIRVECE, R50 : RAM NAGAR, BELGAUM

6. SHRI. IVEAIF-EABALESHWAR N NALAKAR AGE : MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, RIO : NOBO, AT : KODAYAGI POST : DEVARGI TQ : KHANAPUR, DIST 2 BEILGAIEM.

{By Sri. A A MULLA ADVOCATE FOR C/R~R1;

.. . I;If--I5:-S?:j'I~I'I*:::':f§I*:>SS* . SR1 SANTHOSH M. SASAJI ADVQCATE3_'F'O1?'€'%'§':2 ID " '' RS: SERVED AND UNREPRESEiNTE_3D'} ~ THIS MFA IS FILED D/.S_ I7év;.I}"--..0F Mi%".;é;C'T,'"31.§8$§;Q AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND "AWARD IDA%I'EI:>;"<V._;'S:SS'--;2009I PASSED IN NIVC No.IIIS;20D'? t)I.\I'TIID ET};-.E {J'F' TEE I-ADDL; DISTRICT JUDGE) AND ADDLI VIvI--AC'*I,,"SELGAUVIII, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION' 'SF f_%I:S,,*7>a,1.:'2«g¢« ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE) RATE 0Ii'_S'--:~a A_$\?E'«1L'.MFfROM THE DATE) OF' PETITION TILL RSALIZSTIQVNII ' 1 " "

TIIESE "I11I.§i?PEI'§§,S FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THIS cQIJRT--"D~SjLIvSI2{SD THE FOLLOWING:

V ..,§;I3_DéMENT Tjffzﬁﬁﬁ twD"»ap§:§€a1S' by insurer am C§i§'€{:'{€d against ihe 'award DaSSed by the E Aédl. BiS€f§C{ Judge and }Ic::_<£I'I..,._S-I;%:';éIc€*§,VVSé;g.2;um ID .':'s.e'I'%fC NDS..'§§16;'2QQ? and L§1?'j2®Q'}' é2I:€S;---..__§8.;€}8;I2§*C}9 quastéaning Ehﬁ quanium. Sf <:Dmp6I'ISS3::%DD ".-:':='~__f§3};'EEi§"§€é EIIDIIIIEIE SS S>:Dr'D§iS.D§ SD52 Sﬁeking fer i"€{i'I,"IC"%ZiC=Z'I DE S§%IEE€f.

T2. The fSI<:IS in DD': SDSIE lsadéng ti} fiiing S15 é';hsr:'SS SDDSSES are as I;S:Ider:--

The QISCSSSSCE Shankar Rama Eeaéaé aiemg wiizh his bf€}§h€E' USSSDE Rama BSSSIZ SS 2: piiiion rider w:':I"c:= proceeding {rem : 4 : Kirzanapur to reach Ramarzagar on 1'?'.O4.2{)O"? and when they reached Vatare Village 9:: NRA}, a. truck bearing registyation N0.KA~22;'A~4249 came from oppesite direeticm in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said meter cyeliet with piélion rider and dmggecé them to a distance of hejf a _1~:~_%.1_}:51::»ie-ter from the place Gf accident': and both rider succumbed to injuries at the spot. _Q;'1 accduiatiifef 'death .Q4f'\. these two persons, claim petitions we:re the cieceaseei persons. _ V. ' h' V t t .

RE: MFA 1~zo.2o13o/2010 uvwc

3. T he wife and a claim petition t1'fi€:ie;= t}te""3vi€$:tor Vehicles Act, 1994 in MVC Noel': ltéj eelief sf Compensation of ?1,OO,OO,OO(}xj"=«.Vwith ~__<:c5';ttb' interest. On service of notice, '"V"§§tiSp{ji:i't'£1€EtT_1%; N:0.2;f"iVf1S1E§€§" appeared and fiied written staiement Wand '€ieni'ed'*tthve"'e§aim in toto. Respondent Ne.1§0vsner cf the e{fe::di1*:g Ezaé not eenteeted the claim @€€iti(§Bc €331 téae f3t3aeie efzpéeaéézage ef partiee, tribunzil framed feéiewﬁrtg iesees for A ..::5=;Aeeé.:r;eéée2*et:%ez::«~ ii"; Whethet the eetétierzete grave that deceased Shankar Rama Besaé ﬂied in motor vehicie accident tinat eeeurreé on I?'.Sé~.2OG4 at '£60 pm er: !\iH~4 near Vatare 'afiiéagee Khanaeur, Beigaum Distﬁet, dtze is the rash ané : 5 : negligent driving of the Goods Truck bearing registration NotKA~22/A-4243 by its dtiver'?

(ii) Whether Respondent No.2 proves that it is not Eiable to pay the compensation as per the obﬁectéons'?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitied compensation and if so, from Wh0t'.Et:''al"Ed7:V"''s.''' "

what qttantum'?

(iv) Whatorderoraward? A ._ . _ RE: MFA No.2o129/2010 {MVC.tHo. 1 11":?4;2;9o'7}s,»"'V j;

4. The wife and children _decsas<::Rd'v'fi1et,t§ a Claim potition under Section tho vV6h'iC1€S titctt, 1994 in MVC for reiief of Compensation of ?"1,00,00,0{}Oj;f§~' with*--co'SVt .Etﬁ--:iuév.z1t€r€st. On service of notice; RCSf}O1'1{";J','€1'V".t:_.N{),2;i{'f:lTté?;3;t'€ﬁI' ':s.ppes.rod and ﬁled W'I"i'{?;{"3I1 statemeyzt Ztarvzétri«déttioolt:t}3._o"«;§aim if? totot R€SpG§}ﬁ€§}§ No.1/owmir of the o§t1;s'1<Ei':og Avet:."Ev<iE:;5;'h.;3;d not €GZ'§{€'St€d the oéaim gotition. On the V V' basis of §e;%.cf;it3§s of ztrtiss, t*§:i'o12.z'1a§ framoct fottowéz'; issues for " " -« ;%__%':s'»f:or"2séd€:':f§:f?;ioz3:~ {E} Vkfttstiisgr the petitioners move that oiocsassti Vasant Rama Essa: dies in motor azshéote accident that occurred on 17342084 at 1.60 pm: on M-§~4 neat Vatate Véttaget téhatéagtsz Boégatirtz DES?§§Ct, dots to the {ash 3:35 :6: rte-giigent driving of the Goods Truck bearing registratian No.KA--22/A--4249, by its driver'?

(ii) Whether respondent No.2 proves that it ':3 not iiabie to pay the csmpensation as pear 'ma ebjectioras'?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation and if SUE from whor:j':~~and«j:"'v'L:"' what Quantum'?

(iv) What order or award'?

5. The wife of deceased i;fi"1§\'f}W€C Nd '1.1V'16x,f22}:f5?§g£>:Vhérséif examined as PW~1 and also 036 u}§t:<26:§<3 Séii Deepak Balachandra Sadekar as }'2_a'f_1d EIx.P--1 to EX.P«

11. N0 ':23aﬁ:ii'1q¢d an behaif of the fespondents. Howevcr, bﬁgpolicy of the offending vehicle vwas m;;;fke--d.as . h in N911}? ,/ 2802?', wife of the ééceaseﬁ gig': as Pwli anﬁ aéso examirmd an wéfmess Sm %fi1'::aj§é;I«: §§S1aé ééT PWQ and gs: markeé EX?-1 is EX.P~«i23D T316

5. '*§.z:é3;m::<::5:*;§${§§§r:§; 0:" $38 <:sff€n<§é:zg vehécia '§fJ.E§:E§ Z'1'3&i'§§{{"3€§ E:~<_;§--~E. 0:': the basis of pisadéng sf pariisss iribunai has . _4"e'.ve:--aréeci compensation, tegethey with ir1ter€st 35: the raéie of 63% by "per annum payaiﬁﬁr fmm Ehﬁ data sf §€'{§{i{}§'§ iii} €135 daté sf dﬁgesii 0: payment? aa f{}§€}WSiw IN IN MVC.1116/0'? MVC.1.__117/O7

(i) Loss of dependency: $18,263 121- J

(ii) Loss Qfdependency: 2=:o,o09;w

(iii) Transportation of dead ?'10gG9(_3-,k_ body:

(iv) FLmeraEexpense$: '~. ~.

(V) Loss ofestate: %1'{3,Q0x:v.; "=. "'""~'%§0,oo5x.' {vi} Loss ofconsortiurn: __%.. fj~.,€13,000/L'~-.. €18,090!-» TOTAL WM The said judgHr13§:nt;11T'L'Va_r1d,V"av}a§"ds_<.gjas'Se§iWby way ef common judgment; are qz1aé:sf:§pne'd'i4:1Ttih'<:s¢V'é'pp:«5a§s by the insurer'

8. Sri "Kayaka.fr;ati1_1éa_1"iiQd counsel fer the insurer would subméé; ihaut'L.¢{>rr;;:$é:1sé;ti'o§1"-~'L'awarded by tribunal in MVC _..,.I'Jc>.E1.»I§f;f2{}'3"? :,ir:é;":>::r_ ____ _j£}r;e heading Z933 of irecame to {he V;:Ze;:>énde:2.:s'«is'«jzzfézhaut any ratéonai arid canfﬁnds 'aha: i:r§%:;una};

e:":<:é";:i2r:::9?: %i_@:1$§éering {he widaw 9.? ésceassd was gaming 2.5% if Sa£a§'"j:x {if dééeased as pension ans? augh: :9 éiavs 'man 15i§.1%3Ci§LE€i--§;€é. ﬁe '=5J{}L'z§i§ a§é3€> c<;:;i€z*:{§ aha: maitégiiéz ezgéegtsd '{3}; at 'if!' ﬁg :'g=-3': in C{>Ti;${}':f"ia3'i€i* zafézh E39: Eaéég dswa. bf; £'~§:sr1 'bi@ Sllpfﬁffiﬁ Ccurt in Sada. E?erm,a's Case reparzsd in [2399 AC3 1298], He Wouid sxfamii that in view of the muiiiplier 0f '1 1' having bﬁfiﬁ adapiﬁé and C{}f1S§§§€f€C§; éthe number of f,-'€3'§'S cf 2 5%?-18%:,"'7*{I:,'~_:.é:2,u_ %12,72,372;-- : 9 :

returns for she assessment year 28062007 as per E3><;.P»«l9 ought to have been taken for arriving at less sf irteome to the dependents of the deceased and iribunal should have awarded compensation but, the tribunal committed grave ermz' in considering the income of deceased as per natlce isstied Vby Income Tax Department on the deceased foe asses'sm.ej.n_t__l' 2004-05 as pea' axes which {eflected the_..i1a_Al¢e;ne_l.:"e.f the deceased at ?1,86,24{};'-- and eantendgiswtiaat have accepted the same when lr2c;:(3rz1e4l't.a_l§§i*..1".ett:11"1.'}1é;'s, assessee fog" subsequent years enll record and as such, he foefefe.§§;%lj§u.statiealei" 'Elle income of éeceasecl. and rewassessmeﬁt ol'V'vCC=fnpelia*sat.§en payable to the legal heirs ef also submit that appropriate multiplier eer3§tilree§"%:a as per Sarala Varma's case x C<}:'}.Si§{§§'llf1g§.thl6l deceased as '52' years as an the date of anelmttet 'l2' as eensielered by 'tribunal and aeeare§%.agl;§f';V-.étei'-seeks fez" madiflcation of the jadgmea: and awarCl4.__pas__se:lVl' tribunal and fa: allawiag bet}; the appeals.

" tﬁer eeatra, Sta; ,/§:tF§,§ifl't£llEi3 ieameei eauasei fﬁt" the ._frelsiaeaaeatsfclaimants waaéa sttpeart the juégmem; aad ataraed; "f§é;§ses by tribtxrtai and eantends {hat ée-ceases Sriﬁasantéz Rama Desaigl was a Minor Forest Pmciuce and Transport eeazraetee' ass, was moi; ealy earzyirtg en said avaeatiea, but was i %W..

: 10 : also having agriculéural lands as evidenced by EZX.P~»2O to EXKPA 23 and thus, income aa taken into consideration by tribunal cm the basis of EXP-2 ta 34 would be the avarage magma and submits that tré¥:>'L2a'1al has taken the incarae of deceased an over all appreciation cf evidence aria accordingly, he p:afgz:3f.fQr dismissal of appeals and confirmation of {he award passed by the tribunal.

12. Having heard the learned:=.A:advaca?:é.saaplpeafifi-g_ fcgri parties and after having perused-<__the ijL.1Vdgmer1:'"a'i:d_ awlards passed by tribunal as also depasiilicns aln'd¢_li<éXl.'1iloi:l;s made available by learned adVOC'l:lf€.S a.}§pc;a;*i1¢:gV.l"OrA parties, following points W0*a,:1dil'a1'isgéiif0r c€>'naé'idera{i6'ri:~ 'E, awarded under the headiag loaS_di'.ln::dﬁ_r;?ai to fhe dependants in MVC '~vz\£;;.1€'l6;1i:ﬁU'?daiec£:18=O8.2{}09 is czorzirary to the factsgnd llaw""a'n7d is it required to ba reassessed :.=aV_;'1<_la 'l*aém:§u€ed and if 30, is what aompansaiien ;C§a'§'stz1ia;:l'$~akauld ae eafllfea ta? . 'Jl.fl2a§iiér the sazaaeaaaiéaa awaraed under ma _ Esaadéag fags af incama is 5318 aaaaaaanza is": lzfiifﬁ ?s£a'l'§i'?;'2§§? aaiaa "%Sl$§2éf}§§ éa aanérarg 'la 'ma 'fads aad law and Ea E: raqukad is be geaasaaaaa and fecamputad and if as, ta whai aampenaaizlaa claimants would be entitled to'?

3, Whathaz Elle {§Q§TE§8E":88§§G§'E awardad amaer cemzarztianal éiaaﬁa in both casaa la; E\/E';/'S E : 12 : erapleyea and were in service as 0:1 the date of accident. The 3"

claimant namely, the daughter of deceased was married and was residing in her matnmoaial home, which is also eat in dispute. In effect, there were only two deper1r:lar1ts who were dependant on the ineeme of deceased, namely, wife as well as @711 eelairriarzt i.e., the daughter of deceased. in View of the dicta the Horfele Supreme Court in SARLA VEI€MA'S ' number sf dependants are 2-3, deisluctlerxjev towards Qersonal and living exP€P:Ses of--Athe decéav-sea' ant? ﬁts? 1/em' Thus, a sum of $10,833/~ 1.,2'3w.§ra.:;.3L2,5eV: /2 is to be deducted and the ineleme ls tellje arrived at, which would be ?'2.':,668_/~ fwj. Therefore, annual less of 'the legal heirs of deceased would be €21,568/l--V.._§{l 12 L" and this is the less af annual ineeme which has tweeaéetermlned by the triieunal which earmet ;bet;elel'l'eitla*er evrreneeus er eorztrariy to tee facts on reeerei. ._ 'l":"i'et;na§'3rias adapted araltﬁpiéer af *7: 1* and assessed; Effie eafagae-asatier: by usiag spat multiplier fer aararetiag "lv.leaVr:2;:erasat§ea aafler tzeaztéiaggt 'Size Ber:"eT%e :'§LEj;3?§f°€":"t"1€ '§n"lSARE,z'i;. §*"ER2'lzfﬁ£E3 CASE has held that tahéie assessing:

weempleasatien pagzeiele to the legal heirs ef deeeaseél the '"~t:iultipiier that is to be adeeted in the ease of death at a :13: permanent employee would be on Davies method and has helé at paragraph 15 to %he foliowing effectr» "E5. We may refer to the fotfowing observatéQ;j.$_'4 Triiok Chandra: (sec p.359, para 15); " M

15. We thought it neCessa;f§ ti)' «re--'i«ter-.:e2EeV:'ci1e._ ' VV methed of werkirég out "j'ust'.. C'c3Vm;:§e.:M:at'§<;:xV because, of iate, we' have Vr:ovti'Ced fromueivéjve awards made by tribu':':vai'§-eand co~-ufvtsv.t§1_=at t§r1eVVV princigle on which t§"18__.f?i:Lsit_i;::w!.i_er m'e*tho_ci: wee developeé §1aS;._ °t:.¢,>er1.'_VAlo$%H's«i.gh§"eAf anti once again a hybﬁti .e_"réet§'§'o'é en the subjectivity of :tAf1e'»TE%"b§Jr.a.I';f<;e:jVr':%" 'surfaced, intred 11r3:éfertai's"i3cy "a "!'a'L:.*<----wef reasonable ur3é"f9"r_3'§*er1Vi£ti'3-.*v"'iV'_;Vj .;:z'eterm§rzatior3 sf cor1=1p'e--rse,antio:1._. it *?¥'1L,:$§ be? realfsed that the Tr'i'bur}2alic<3.u'rt.has_'to determine a fair amount of'corr}§)e§j'5et%0f€'eveﬁiardeble to the victim of an Aacciedent'-w'hi::h :%'m,Jét be eroportioraate to the §r"%ii.I*f'>v7]'V<:aL;.é:--eé*".

- *T1:is'A.eeuré}}:[ {Jae ease of EJNIGN OF ENBEA AND KUEVIAR AND QTHERS repoeted in ' ~ --« 'ef§"ef:E:» ""§'?, Er: 'Me eeeef tee eeceeeee wee egee 53 years et 'me time ef eeaiéﬁ me she weeié have attained the age of sL,sper--annuation in about T years. The muliiplief period is 9 years Aﬁeg' ? yeaeeﬁ the Eréceme weuid me: iweve been Re;1§,852f~ per morzfh, bet erziy mughiy 5G% ef 269$ 3:8:TG9 referred E0 s'upra, has ézeié :9 the ;%."<>Ei<;wéng :15: deceased. Since he weulci have retired had he 'Seen alive by the zime benefit flowing frem the notiﬁcation had came into force. Thus, the number of years of service that was; Iefz with the deceased was one year and in View of the same, ash.-held in Lakshmi Kurz1ar's case, after Gee year, {he iI1CC'--'I(:3£:1'C'*v_:"'-".}Vf"'.,'t1'1E,' deceased wc>u1d not have been €21,668/~ ?2,6G,O26,x'- per annum, but only _5C>??/.o_ ef eoesequentiy, the E053 of dependenég weulei _beeh..V'}:3Q?3?i;J.:oi"

?2,6(},{)16/'~ per annum. '§'h1,2s.{;_E<:?2g3s of'de;z9cvndef§'ei¢}._'w§liV 1:-iave id be calculated wiih reference '£0 saléufj; income' £791? a period 91' one year and pension income the rejm.ain__ing'pe:iod of eight years, 'ey adopting the rnjL;Itip1ie:..a$_ "9"a:1c§ 153:3 tﬁdepencieney would, therefore, be as i;:7:_.aVrf;e;a*:=--

:) %2zV,i:s«6;8..,{:*--::§'':'.2 : ?2,e0,e::e;w " 2133 }:ea1r'.eVﬁx%rarés (for 8 years) ' E_§{}s3,_ef meg 3} ,38,Q{}8,:'»» =* ?fL8,4@,O6é~g'# '".E'Q'§''AL : ?13,C%G,§8€},!~ K99 '"i'"Eie}:';3,5' eiaéznarzﬁe azzouié be emiiied ﬁe fess ef ineeme in X3 :-312m" ef. §'1f:'2,{}€}§{}8{}/--» 22$ agaizzei 21 eum (3;-'T %"EE§,2{}3ET£i2§m ..§i.v£;:f;:§«§:<% 353?; §§°'Eb'z.i1"?;£"E_§, éhe ::<}m1eee::2i'i<:e': ass em-*ar:'§e<:% hf; M.-'§E'§5L}?E.:§E&1§ is; redaeeé E3}? ?;3;,i2€},{}32_,!R '§he abmse eaéei awafd amount shah carry ﬁnterest at the rate of % per annum frem the date of eetitéen {iii daie of payznerzt er depesét or reaiizaéierz whichever is earhez:

:16:

RE: POINT" N().2:-

20. In the instant case, the accident in question 85 date of death are net in. dispute. What has been <:onte:1de<:t.T::y the insurer in this appeal is wit.h regard to the ase&e'e;e§r;£é§y;"'..9f Cempensation payable uhder the heading Z033 "

dependants by contending that Vt irztes eonsideratien the Eatest ineeme "'%a:><7»__fe"turﬁe §E1ed£ EX.P~19 and not the income taxvfietiee "issued [by "§e.t:--t>.:<r1*e Department for the assessment yeei1f"v.2UO_€3;~O5.' aeVVpetj:§Ex.P~6 as also the multiplier whieh'--t}ug1~1t. to; h'23faeA:"'heen taken is '11' instead of '12'in View of the'SatfI'a er»1f1_7ze'e Ceee'. 21V.'--._ In-sQ"--I'~ar*.._»é.e t1*1e"'é.13eo:'ne that has been taken into consideratierz 'by t1*ib1iha1,_'§['e..eV't11VSeusseei at paragraph 16 of the judgmemdt and Vest:-x:'a_:V'<i,V" "ax--'hereunder tziéounal has relied upen the éhtémetiee iieetzefd by the income 'E'a:»<: Department under Section et --:Te_X. Act, E962 whieh shows the inceme ef the d;eeee;seéV_vi'e2:'.t?'ee assessment year 28%)»/$83 which earee te be é:i'1e;}<e:*3: E:»<;1P«€> Eseézereueéee the as::nueE, éneeme reféeeted ﬁe e §'§,,Vé'§€:._2'4{};w anti aftee dedez*t.%ng tie §a:<. ezzéei eeeé eeiémg the eefized ef tax te he eeeeiveé by the eieeeaseét t:"i§3ur:e;E arrived at ethe income ef the deceased at ?i,E§2,858/~. The fact which requires to ee eetieed is that eiaimahte Erzaé produced the ieeeme tax returee fiieé fer the assessment year 2CIi3E:~«G?, j_.€k§ ﬁ,m.~..., : 17 : ﬁnancial year 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006, Vi="}'1€I"€1,'iZEd€I' the gross total income is 2'eﬂect.e<:i as ?"1,47',410;'? and this does not include agricultural iriceme which was at ?41,600;'~» for the relevant. period. The accident in question has occurred on 17.04.2007. The deceased was not a person dravgNLnvg.4_:fixed salary' and tribunal ought to have taken into cor;s§¥;1e:'atitt;--r1_"the'_ latest incetne tax returns ﬁled by the deceased W}"1ie.1ﬁ'~wéts:t'er assessment year 20060'? and iénanciel yeart returns ﬁleci in "Sara?" under Secti.Qr1 I43_Gf the {1'i€:er:1e Tetxz Atc:t_'° was to be taken into consideratcéorzttét' per revtgurns, the gross total income of thedecea_:sedVA1br._ the..ﬁnancigt1 year was 31,47,410/A for the relevant. tthe deceased had income f§%Qm._ -the tune of 323,100/~ and income fromxether smiretes T(}1'Z?'13,295;'-. There cannot be any disputegjthst this"'é.t1ceme' is not éeprived t0 the claimants etc:

:"._ac9cet1fit e:f;?tt1e"«{§temise of first c1aim:;mt's hL':Sb8.:'id. The saié iztesreie i;'KA{Z3'iT*,ﬁ~}'.)5¥v.l{'.A'V_f,"i'v?'.',i§ ﬂew sad claimants are not deprived 0% this 0 0' in<:e.m'e_,_ 'E'j}:;t;;s,:a sum sf ?3f>,396§A (ieeeme {rem hetise prepertj:

" §'j"'--a2?t~éA 'meetzse "treat ether SGU_t'C6S zxzfaéeh was earzteci by eteeeaseét 'Z::{e;:i";*;e_At>e detttteteat zfrem the geese tetai éseeerge see E-'=f§"i€t'i se M .<§e;é_:fteted, téze aztzruat ineeme sf {ieeeeseﬁ weutet ee €13 1?0E=f%;'«: :22. Learneé eeueset for claimants weuid contend that agricuiturat meeme 0:" éeceased is te be aeideﬁ in View ef the fact :18: that deceased was also cayryihg on agricultural operatians in the lands belonging ta him as ﬁvidenwci from RORJS pzoéucéé as par Ex.P»2G to E2X.P--123. it wouié emerge that ii; is Qxily the Supervisian Charges, which the dﬁceasmzd was Carrying"0>h';-ﬁrhlich the claimants may have to axpend for carr35irlgV'olrih'lls;L3lé_h agricultural operations and it is tl1aT.-."ééiT1':{)1'.1f1?:j' WhiC§1'4th€v}?:V'wH2xa.§-' incur as expehdimre far ssupervisihg the :a1gf§cult:;fal.»0:;;e':éit.ic§i3.$ that claimants would E35 entitlélci_V.tL;x§3€: fc'--:~cGmpEv.nsatéd;VV "Since-V {here being no positive rr1at.erialV_hel:ng '£1';-'8.il31'3lf3-.(}l'iVAI';3COFCl and claimants have not tendé3*€é.,a;nyV this issue, the probable supervision <:h.aj;'gE:s- }::"0hSidh§:rir.ig ltthéldate of accﬁsrlt and the extent hf IZ'1.H'Cl:L'*3,'1'L5-',':1'{':'§:HV'b:\/" the daceased, ié would bettsel-md,é.h:'1:"s§iI°e_'t{:holci' that a Sum of 3100;' ~ per day 0:"

$3,000/-- pe":ﬁ_m3;1tl*1 appfopriaté supervision charges _ which_§:t§iehA.<:laézria13_ﬁSl maé}-T" have to expend gm &1C:C{>1}3"}.'£ :3? the clernige :::fE'grl Vagarztha Ram D6321:

._ "-l'__253;'*"l'E:f:,1s;.:'%;'l"':£: annusé €3;'3{@f3§';€ll'E1.'£Z'€ 3:0 826 claimants gm miss _ac€:{>ii':-"at 'éf§;":Z}+.'x,"a§¥';l.: be 336,098/A and whcen rsamé is; aéded {is ihe . :E:~:.al_i§zC<:2'ni:i€ 5;? {ha ':i::3<:<:=z::-zed ?l;EE,§E4Ef~ &§§IE§J;€:.l l.E"§(;'{}E}.'3.€'3 ",01'---v'E§€1"§€C€8_S€§ wauié E36 ?i,~<-§»'E",S14»;'~. Thé nmmbs? Q5 (3.6--T}:€3I§.{i€I'}tS lbeing 'I3', deduction Gf 1;'3"§ is is he made tmzaasda "V§€3'SO1"i8;l and living sxpenses Of the £le<:€aS€d which Weliid be ?»<%9,QG5,.«"~. Thus, the annual inceme Of {he C'§<2C<%a$€d wsuéd be Kg?/.. .

:19: ?49,GO§f«. Thus, {he armua}. income of the deceased woulci be 398,009}. Appropriate multiplier te be aéepted Considering the age of deeeaseé at 52 years wouié be 'I E' and c:ompensa¥:ie"1ﬁ..>'{ha*{ becomes payabie under the heaeiing loss of i:2e<3nie>V"t§§".o.fi1.e dependants would be egeeog/- X :1 M e1o,78,099j'-- compensation of ?12,22,872/W as awarded. 'byl v']'_'hu}s., compensation as awarcied by ihe tribuiial by a ?i,44,'7'?3/~.

RE: POINT N0.3:

24. Mr. Ka}-*akama"t",' "for the appellant, has contended th84§LV'f§fibL}§7L}'i1HV'I'£aElV:S axraezded compensation under general/c:onve%2iio:1a1V:V'§t§1ea.dS«V.«'_'underVWfive heaés at the rate of $10,003/~» i;l1'1d€f eaei1::_LjV'hea:1:i%1g»~"w1:1:Leh are as f011m>vs:-- 2055 of dependency, f%?C:r;_epari'a€fe.nVAéf dead body, funerai expenses; Eoss V'ef_esi'afe azzd fess ef eofieerzfium and contends that the award of ,5' "Joe heading Bass 5:? dependency is virtuaiiy repeaied. ii is re be noticed that zréeueai has me:

e;§:arded~~ae:r eempeneazien under iﬁe heaéieg Ease ef E9228 and ._ eégfgfeeféee te the eézéééeeza ef deeeeeeé ené this miggieé; he 3:: ermr when eempeeeatien under the heading fess ef Zeve arzé Vaﬁ'"ecfien to the ehildiezz is required te be awarded and when the same is avirarﬁed unciez the said heading izletead. ef 5053 sf depezzﬁencgf 'she zeta} eomeensatier: awarded by 'ﬂee iréeunai é ﬁf.

:20: under conventional heads at ?E"::O_,O€}O/~ doea net get Changed or modified and as such, {he fincﬁézag of {he ti"ibLZ2'§€S(.I in awarding C<:3rrzpe;'1sati<>r: under {he Conveniianal headings in a sum 0f ?5{},OOOj~ dcses not require :0 be interfered and it is accmdingly conﬁrmed.

25. In View 0f {he above éiscusséon, the f01§Qv§*'i"r'1'g-«':§1¢ciéf:_.§'S'«M pass€ci:»« ORDER9 5:. MFA No.2O13Oi2{}1O i2:_'hereby_éi:--r3wed i»:€.

and compensation awa'id:éd%Dundémhe.,hé:3dE'r;g'" ' fess of incometo the _dékf)and£.%_nts iS'*redHuCHeEd from ?'18,20,¢ 12.z._"j;o 3-13gQO,1U8§!: "(Reduced by " %éT's'u:r%§ iQf V» ailowed in part area ccmpe't:sat'§-off'-jﬁf'%?'iLVOg?8g099i-- is awarded under . "the heué'd-iVng____!Qs.3 of income is the dependenfs in E'"" '$:::it:)$z£§%utior: of ?'12g22.,872f- awamed by tyébunat. T. : j..;::R¢'5;§¢¢.§ by a sum 0? 2*: $44;2'?3;w;. <:.,.__ ' "é".?:Lé~"a1bc'».ie awards sahaéé aarry interest 3? the gate " _ "cf 5% per arémsm fmm the Qaie at? peiiiiaré t§§§ the @328 :3? ﬁegéeséé 9: %"€3§ESa€§{.-'E1 wiaésheves ﬁg earééegc d Qompensaéiasré awagdmi ands: convenééonai heads by the trébunai is confirmed and same is :20: désturbed :.

$3 No er-jet" as 'E3 was;

ﬁr/..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court