Karnataka High Court
Smt Anuradha M S S vs The Managing Director on 23 September, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, H.S.Kempanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE ZSRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 :PRE}SENT: THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K.PATIL< L AND THE HbN'BLE MR.JUS'I'I_C.E»H.S.,KEh7il519§.7§T1\?"A'_' M.F.A.N0. 83840? 2095 tMV1' Between: 1. Smt. A.nuradha.1\/i.S.S Aged 51 years. V W/0. Late D.K.AI1jan«._ 2. Master A Aged" 25--.ye+f1rs,":f:.; " S/oi. Late D;.K._.fA:ojAa1?..MV 3. 1\/Iaste:v}'i.A.V.iVe'la.:';-- Aged 15-years, ._ A ._ S S,/0. Latel1").,K.'AnjaVn. * 4. l'SmtE."tDe"Vamma, 'Aged 9.5*y_e'ar__s, Late Kenehegowda, A Reporte_d..dead. Iflowefvrerdby oversight Tribunal has shown her name in cause title by . over, sight. to " * LRs of A4 as already on record x as appellant No. I to 3. 3"' Appellant is mi 1' being represented by ' other and ,3 ''''''''"n'''mmM'Mm»'w I I 6- natural guardian lsi Appellant. All R/at.No.808, 2nd Cross, H.R.B.R Layout, 18' Block. Banaswadi, Bangalore-560 043. (By Sri. O. Mahesh, Advocate) And: The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. Depot, Shanthinagar, K.H. Road, A Bangalore--56O O27. p V pp _. ...... ..Respondent
(By Sri. ' ' ' ' ' 'I U This MFA. is Vfiled.4_U-/Vs. 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and awaid dated: 31.03.2005 passed in MVC No. 3089/1995"on the---.file "--:)_f"the VI Addl. SC] and IVIACT, Bangalore,' {SCCH-- .02}, "partly allowing the claim petition for compensation ._and*seek1r1g enhancement of compensation With«iCnte"rest at 1'?-_'»%___1_'-_'_.A. .A. coming on for Hearing this day, 'lPAvT_IaL~ J..._dfel1vered the following:
:JUDG MENT:
appeal filed by the claimants is arising out V impugned judgment and award dated 3&1;/03/2005 passed in MVC No.3089/1995 on the file %.»;......
If 3% pa, from the date of petition till its deposit. ~-«Being aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunai that 10% contributory negligence on the deceased and dis--satisfied Wiith"' compensation, the appellants iéfhave appeal seeking appropriate
4. We have by the appeilants in appeal and heard the ifor respondent-
Corporaticggi _ , by the appeliants in thistappetalt Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of "':'dep'er1d'ency'«._and conventional heads and also failed to "'ta1§.e.into'..,con'sideration that, if the deceased was alive he '""----mig:htv""have getting additional increments and eipr-emotions and other benefits in his service as per the iaw laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts T judgment and therefore, the impugned judgment and %W /"
1
X 12 X 11) instead of ?6,84,000/-- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
9. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding * compensation under conventional__heads andVl"th:erefore, it it needs to be modified. Having r;'t.~..ga1':"._j1e xto lithe circumstances of the case, we"'--award'v~a surnt. of.:._i?1.5.§0O0/-- = ' towards loss of consortium, a_:lsum,of €.l'G,f):QO/w.} towards loss of estate, a sum of loss of love and affection and a sum of "transportation and funeral expenses.;5' _. . "
10. contributory negligence at 10%, on deceased is concerned, the same cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside A. for_t'he reason'tI1at..,..._.it could be seen from the materials 'aylai1abIe:"o;rit. that, bus has hit the motor cycle in bumper and the same is not in dispute. is also not in dispute that, driver of the bus A "ll light the cigarette instead of driving the vehicle and caused the said acfient and therefore, the said J MM 1' accident was solely due to the negligent driving by,» the driver of the bus, as he is not supposed Cigarette while driving the bus as per conditions of the Corporation. has not been looked into or eonlside-red by the Tribunal while fixing negligence at 10% on the part ofthe 'Further, is clear from the contents of jvarid the sketch that, two right side.
Having thelrilatter, we are of the considereld has erred in fixing the at 10% on the part of the deceased. anld'-.ti1'e'l' is liable to be set aside and it is set aside, fixing the entire liability on the'-lrespozndenft»Corporation Having regard to the facts and circumstances it it it the case as stated above, the impugned judgment and award' passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. /$1..
[O The total Compensation payable comes to ?10,87-,-356/- and the break-- up is as follows:
Towards Loss of dependency ______m Towards loss of consortium _-- " "1v~5,:jOOG/-- Towards loss of estate :,j.LO,.0'O0/-' 'd 3 ? .
Towards loss of love and affection ' 'Sf. 2O_,OO_O/--"~= : .3 ' ?
Towards transportation and. fune1"a.IA X. T '-
expenses " T' r Total t' 1VO;'8't7-;35€;/-W
12. Accordingly, appellants is allowed in p.§%1+{:i;flDl1d 'i';:"',"i'1€;:b and award passed by .3089/1995 is hereby modified,"'1i:«tii}:y,g#§ on the Corporation and of ?lO,87,356/-- instead of %'6,5l_.60O awarhded. the Tribunal. The enhanced ' ppcoinjpenpsation cornesto ?-4,35/756/--. The interest is awarded at(_3%_ :.ii'oni--.the date of the petition till its realisation on thejtotal'compensation of Rs.10,87,356/- instead of 30/0 ' V awarded by the Tribunal.
Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced ' compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of it receipt of a copy of this judgment and award with interest at «_M_#___m_,W,...
10,215,356;-e""7'f"_f H 1] 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisationen the total compensation awarded.
Out of the enhanced compensation of a sum of ?3,00,000/-- with prop0'rti0nate be invested in the Fixed Dep0sitA:'«Vi_rr-arry Scheduled Bank, in the namrejsr. the 'appe11a::1£t"r»r5.'1 for a h' period of five years reneewahletttfbryyancthefftve years with liberty to her to accrued on it, periodically. x 't u The Rs.1,35,756/- with prop0rti01'1at.e:'ihterest «'be""reI£eased in favour of the appellaht 1'Jcs.' V "proportion, immediateiy, on deposit by utthel .. «flaouffice is dir'ecte_dA to draw the award, accordingly. Sd/-~ Judge Sd/-» Judge