Karnataka High Court
Sangeetha vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 18 February, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
3. Pgrvind
Bhushani Kumar, Advecate)
1:»: THE HIGH mum' 01$ KARNATAKA AT 3AN£,;éaLQ:éé"
DATE13 Tais THE 18"' £15? 0?.§?EBRUA13§§, 2(§ij§§.V"
PRESENT ' ' ' 2 xx
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTI'CE'=x{.GoPALA.c;(:.3.vi3_A=
THE Hozvma r§&'R.qL1sT£'¥:§E
M. F..A. N;5.',3"85;?2¢'-g_"G<3g "(M-*v;,.V' '
BEEEN: _
1, Sa1:1geé:tha'~ 4' " '
W/0. A€%Wa§1i'_R€ii1:'§}? « '
Agcgi ";:f;'.;§{§jar$_"' " "
2_ Pfiyanka N %
D] »:5;_ 'Late efiawath. VRc.r.;iti--§5
Aged. 9..?e.:--m~, % %
0:. As§:iWa.t}1 «Raddy
._T-Ap;)z~:i}a1it§'T~2V 3 are minors,
" A Rcp. by '_th¢iir mothcrj Ifiaiapcflani
».._{\>/ a: .-249.214, II Cmss, subbmma Palya
Barn;-xswazii Main Road
t$ai2g,_.éi£ore--5f)(} £333. ...Appe1iant$
The Oriental II1S"li1'8;£1CE Co. Ltd,
No.t'::f):5, 1&1 Horst, 15% Mam Read
Befence Colony, near B.NI.S:{'i C330-$311:
100 feet Road, Indiranagar, 15': Stage
Bangalor-::~56(} 0383 By iis Manager.
ix.)
2. S.Venkatcsi1
5/ G. Changalaraya
No.51, 49" 'A.' C1053, Saraswathipuranzn
Ulseor, BangalonE:--56(} G08. 3 '
(By Sri A.N.Kris}1naswamy, fidvocgtz 'RE; .:'§of
1101:1042 dispensed with)
This appeal is filed under $e:f't'iou"373(.1} of Mb'E<):*~'v'ehic1es
Act, against the juégrneni a::{{§"axx::a.§'{i <;'§E£tE:d_2V1'.'*C}1.QQQ4, passed in
MVC3 NQ4269/2002, on the 1335;' c':-.f_ ft;»€$7vh gfiudge, MAC'T«~4,
Ccurt sf Smail Causes, Bangaltnfe {SC(§H~+4.}, allcrwing the
Chaim petiticm F01' <.:~:;rnpex'1§;éiti01*:. 's.:';?,E,"'a_e:el«ri'x1g i}%t:}1ax:c&rr1e;'1t of
compcnsation. ' V ' ' '4 Z'
This appééi 0:1--fer éir.iriii._s¢.§i_é>ra.V.Lhis day, AMANDA, J,
Cieiivered thef91§.g}&\?5I1§g: ' ' *
7wQfi$§MEfi?
This* a ""':aj3psai far euhancement of
C{)II1pCI3§'»{3{i(}11."" _ V
- V. _ We hays iearnrzzcl Counsel for parties.
' . point that would arise fer our
{i€3fl£§1'I;'I"l'i%1é'int1'%L.)?;fI"':§.tf:}3.;;
'A " _"Wi1si:hea: ma Txibunal is justifieé in
.. __&et¢'m.u§i11i11g the earnings of $114: deceased at
V' '._p_i'{":3.4,€¥{)0/~ per month when it is eszstabiished
fhem the evidence 0:1 rccard that the deceased
was working as an electdcal conisractor and he
was an incense tax 21336355: and filefi inceme tax
returns for the assessment year 2091-02,
declaring his income as Rs.t3(},737j ~ mi' year'?
:~.«.&---~
M:
4. After going through the records, we find that."
tax retum fer the aseessment year 20{)3.~£}iZ
before the date of accident. The T'
suspect the contents of these €i0<: uI1ieI;1ts' T1;¢"».¢2;xa%;1e.%"
income of the deceased for the a:$§,feasme%j;-a. is
shown. as Rs.6{),'73'?/ ~ byt «the deceased
is shown as Rs.l,'285/ «. by
the I'f3S]3GI1C1€I1f.S'.u Iniéjmbe it pmper to
determine Rs.5,0C3{}/-- per
month deceased was ageé
about y:aa;~.§ of accident. Tixezeforeé the
appmpxtiate "i:1_1zitipIier 15. Tlaus, capitalised '$035 of
.',Vc1epencst;f§::c;.ewo1i1e._}§¢ (40,000/~ x 15) Rs. 6,G0,{)0O]~. The
_v.b"b?,a3j4A"awaIded Rs.25,0{}{)/~ under oonventionai
heada Wm-51;, opinion is on the lower sieie. Therefere,
V VV _we e1; h.anr;e'Eh.e same to Rs.40,00G/ ~.
" VT In View of the above, we pass the foilewingz-
ORDER
The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned award is ' moeified. Cempensatiexz (if Rs.5,05,G0{3/-= awarded by the 'l'zibuna1 is cnhancad ta Rs.6,40,0{)0/-, which A' interest at 60/6 per azrmum £10111 the date of petiti611 ':.'::h'<=: ' date of realisation. The insurance compa;33,g 3h"ahli' tilt:
c11ha11ce§ compensation wifhin four "W modified award.
sa/-5 % Iudgé SNN