Karnataka High Court
M/S The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Latha on 14 September, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
Dated this the 14th Day of September 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
M.F.A.No.3549/2010 (MV)
C/W
M.F.A.No.3548/2010 (MV),
M.F.A.No. 3546/2010 (MV),
M.F.A.No. 3543/2010 (MV),
M.F.A.No. 3544/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 3541/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 3540/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 3539/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 3554/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 3558/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 3551/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 3552/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 3555/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2424/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2381/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2429/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2426/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2428/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2427/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2419/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2425/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2423/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2422/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2421/2010 (MV)
M.F.A.No. 2420/2010 (MV)
2
In M.F.A.No.3549/2010 (MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. Smt.LATHA, 38 YEARS,
W/O ANJANAPPA,
R/O KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA,
5TH CROSS, BANGALORE.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
3
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.814/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,600/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No.3548/2010 (MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
4
AND:
1. Smt.VASANTHA, 49 YEARS,
W/O NAGARAJA,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
KURUBAKARA PETE, BANGALORE.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. ALONG WITH
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.813/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.7,000/-
5
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3546/2010 (MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. MAHENDRA KUMAR, 41 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANA.
2. GANGAMBIKA, 34 YEARS,
W/O MAHENDRA KUMAR.
BOTH R1 & R2 ARE RESIDING
AT NO.1655, 16TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
II PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE.
3. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
6
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
5. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 & R3 - SERVED;
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. AND
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.811/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.90,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3543/2010 (MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
7
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. Smt.GANGAMMA,
W/O GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
HATTIMARAMMA GALLI,
KURUBARA PETE,
BANGALORE.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM,
BANGALORE.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
8
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. AND
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.807/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.20,100/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3544/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. G.PARAMESH @ PARAMESHWARA,
S/O GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
9
RESIDING AT BINNI MILL ROAD,
HATTIMARAMMA GALLI, KURUBARA PETE,
BANGALORE.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.808/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,85,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
10
IN M.F.A.No. 3541/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. MASTER MANOJ, S/O PARMESH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
WAS A MINOR BEFORE TRIBUNAL,
RESIDING AT BINNI MILL ROAD,
HATIMARAMMA GALLI,
KURUBARAPETE, BANGALORE.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
11
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. AND
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.806/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.55,400/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE ON RS.44,150/- FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3540/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
12
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. HANUMATHA RAJU.M.
S/O LATE NAGMMA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NOW DEAD.
2. M.GANGAMBIKA
W/O MAHENDRA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
BOTH R1 & R2 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.112/20, 7TH CROSS,
19TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR,
II PHASE,
BANGALORE.
3. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
5. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
13
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 & R3 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. AND
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.805/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,01,900/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3539/2010 (MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. PARMESH, S/O GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
14
2. MASTER MAJOR S/O PARMESH,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
3. SADASHIVAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
R1 TO R3 ARE RESIDING AT
BINNI MILL ROAD,
HATTIMARAMMA GALLI,
KURUBARAPETE, BANGALORE.
4. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
5. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
6. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2, R3 & R4 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. AND
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
15
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.804/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,02,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3554/2010 (MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. MAHENDRA KUMAR, 41 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANA,
R/O NO.1655, 16TH MAIN,
8TH CROSS, II PHASE, J.P.NAGAR,
BANGALORE.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM,
BANGALORE.
16
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. ALONG WITH
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.819/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.62,100/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3558/2010 (MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
17
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. RAJU KULAL, 48 YEARS,
S/O SOMA KULAL,
R/O CHERKY HALADY VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
18
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.551/2005 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.8,900/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3551/2010 (MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. Smt. SIDDA LAKSHMAMMA, 62 YEARS,
W/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA,
R/O R.P.C. LAYOUT, BANGALORE.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
19
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. ALONG WITH
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.817/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,10,400/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. ON RS.84,960/-
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3552/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
20
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. KUMARI VEENA, 14 YEARS,
D/O VISHWANATHA,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
KURUBAKARA PETE, BANGALORE,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SHANTHA.
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
21
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. AND
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.818/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.25,800/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 3555/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
M/s.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE :
VISHNU PRAKASH BUILDINGS,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 25,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S.UMESH, Adv.)
AND:
1. Smt.SHANTHA, 38 YEARS,
W/O VISHWANATHA,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
KURUBAKARA PETE, BANGALORE.
22
2. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVAATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, Adv. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED;
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. ALONG WITH
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.816/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,06,100/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION.
23
IN M.F.A.No. 2424/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
G.PARAMESH @ PARAMESHWARA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O GIRIYAPPA,
R/O MILL ROAD,
HATTIMARAMMANA GALLI,
KURUBARAPETE, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
24
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH &
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.808/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 2381/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
1. PARAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O GIRIYAPPA.
2. MANOJ,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BINNI MILL ROAD,
HATTIMARAMMANA GALLI,
KURUBARAPETE,
BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
25
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM,
BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH &
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.804/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT & MACT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
26
IN M.F.A.No. 2429/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
1. MAHENDRA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANA
R/A NO.1655
8TH CROSS, II PHASE
J.P. NAGAR
BANGALORE
2. GANGAMBIKA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O MAHENDRA KUMAR
R/A NO.1655
8TH CROSS, II PHASE
J.P. NAGAR
BANGALORE ....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
27
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH &
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.811/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 2426/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
MAHENDRA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANA,
R/O NO.1655, 16TH 'A' MAIN,
8TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR,
BANGALORE. ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
28
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH ALONG WITH
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.819/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND MACT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
29
IN M.F.A.No. 2428/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
SIDDA LAXMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA,
R/O R.P.C.LAYOUT,
BANGALORE. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
30
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH ALONG WITH
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.817/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 2427/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
LATHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O ANJANAPPA,
R/O KEMPAPURA, AGRAHARA,
5TH CROSS, BANGALORE. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
31
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH &
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.814/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
32
IN M.F.A.No. 2419/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
KUMARI VEENA,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
D/O VISHWANATH,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
HATTIMARAMMANA GALLI,
KURUBARAPETE, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY HERR GUARDIAN
MOTHER SHANTHA. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD, S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
33
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH ALONG WITH
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.818/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 2425/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
VASANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O NAGARAJA,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
KURUBARA PETE, BANGALORE. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD, S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
34
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH ALONG WITH
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.813/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 2423/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
MANOJ,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
S/O PARAMESH,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
35
HATTIMARAMMANA GALLI,
KURUBARAPETE, BANGALORE. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD, S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH &
Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Advs. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.806/2004 ON THE FILE OF
36
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 2422/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
M.GANGAMBIKA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O MAHENDRA KUMAR,
R/AT NO.112/20, 7TH CROSS,
19TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR,
II PHASE, BANGALORE. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD, S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY
REGIONAL MANAGER.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
37
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
REEPRESENTED BY MANAGER.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI.
REPRESENTED BY
BRANCH MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.805/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 2421/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
SHANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O VISHWANATH,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
KURUBARAPETE,
BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
38
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD, S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.816/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
39
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No. 2420/2010(MV):
BETWEEN:
GANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O GIRIYAPPA,
R/O BINNI MILL ROAD,
HATTIMARAMMANA GALLI,
KURUBARAPETE, BANGALORE. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. B.S.DEVI PRASAD, S/O B.SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.77/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARAVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, SAGAR COMPLEX,
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
3. M/s.SUGAMA TOURIST
CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.2 & 3RD FLOOR,
SAGAR CINEMA COMPLEX,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
40
BRANCH OFFICE : VISHNU PRAKASH,
COURT ROAD, UDUPI. ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED;
BY Sri A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, Adv. AND
Sri A.M.VENKATESH, Adv. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.09.2012;
SRI UMESH, Adv. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.807/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
N.KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this batch of appeals, numbering 25, 13 appeals are preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company challenging primarily the finding of the Tribunal regarding 'negligence' and the remaining 12 appeals are by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
41
2. The Tribunal after clubbing of the claim petitions recorded common evidence and disposed of all the petitions by common a common order. As all these appeals are directed against common judgment and order, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed off by this common order.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petitions before the Tribunal.
4. On 17.05.2004, at about 11.30 a.m., claimants and three deceased, namely, Smt.Swarna, Smt.Nagamma and a minor child Sohan were travelling as passengers in the Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-05-C-2766 from Udupi towards Kundapura side. A bus bearing Registration No.KA- 20-AA-777 was proceeding from Kundapura towards Mangalore on NH-17. Both the tempo and the bus when they were near Karikalkatte of Thekkatee Village of Kundapura Taluk, there was a collusion between these two vehicles. The claimants in 42 their petitions have categorically stated that, it is the driver of the Tempo who drove the Tempo in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake another vehicle and dashed against the bus, which was coming from Kundapura side. The cleaner of the bus lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police against the driver of the Tempo. In the said accident, the inmates of the Tempo by name Swarna, Nagamma and a minor child by name Sohan succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Other claimants sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, after the accident, they were all taken to N.R.Acharya Hospital, Koteshwara. All of them were then shifted to K.M.C.Hospital at Manipal. Some of them were inpatients ranging from two days to thirty-three days. The claimants preferred claim petitions claiming compensation. They arrayed the owner of the Tempo as well as the Insurance Company, which had insured the Tempo, namely, National Insurance Company and also the owner of the bus, namely, M/s. Sugama Tourist Corporation and the Insurance Company, which had insured the Bus namely, the Oriental 43 Insurance Company Limited as parties in all the claim petitions. Accordingly all the injured claimants and the legal representatives of the three deceased filed their respective claim petitions claiming compensation from the respondents.
5. After service of notice in all these claim petitions, though the bus owners were served, they did not appear before the Tribunal. They were placed exparte. Both the Insurance Companies filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim. Each of the Insurance Company contended that, it is the driver of the other vehicle, who was the cause for the accident and the driver of the insurer vehicle was not the cause. However, they did not dispute the insurance coverage to the vehicle involved in the accident.
6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Issues in MVC Nos.804/2004, 805/2004 and 811/2004:44
i) Whether the petitioner proves that on 17.05.2004 at about 11.30 am., on NH-17 Karikalkatte of Thekkatte Village, the deceased Swarna, Nagamma, Sohan met with an accident while travelling in a Tempo Traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-
05-C-2766, as a passenger from Udupi towards Kundapura?
ii) Whether the petitioner further proves that, the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-05-C-2766, who tried to overtake another vehicle and went and dashed against the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AA-777 and as a result of the same deceased Sohan, Nagamma and Swarna sustained grievous injuries and later he/she succumbed to the injuries in the hospital?
iii) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the Tempo Traveler was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation?
iv) Whether the respondent No.2 further proves that there were more than 12 passengers in the Tempo 45 Traveler and therefore, owner has violated the terms and conditions of the permit and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation?
v) Whether the respondent No.2 further proves that there exists composite negligence of the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AA-777? If so, to what extent?
vi) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
vii) What order or award?
Issues in MVC Nos.806/2004, 807/2004, 808/2004, 813/2004, 814/2004, 816/2004, 817/2004, 818/2004 and 819/2004:
i) Whether the petitioner proves that on 17.05.2004 at about 11.30 am., on NH-17 Karikalkatte of Thekkatte Village, he/she met with an accident while travelling in a Tempo Traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-05-C-2766, as a passenger from Udupi towards Kundapura?
ii) Whether the petitioner further proves that, the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on 46 the part of the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-05-C-2766, who tried to overtake another vehicle and went and dashed against the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AA-777 and as a result of the same they sustained injuries?
iii) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the Tempo Traveler was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation?
iv) Whether the respondent No.2 further proves that there were more than 12 passengers in the Tempo Traveler and therefore, owner has violated the terms and conditions of the permit and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation?
v) Whether the respondent No.2 further proves that there exists composite negligence of the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AA-777? If so, to what extent?
vi) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?47
vii) What order or award?Issues in MVC No.551/2005
i) Whether the petitioner proves that on 17.05.2004 at about 11.45 am., near Karikalkatte, Thekkatte Village, he met with an accident while driving the Volvo Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AA-777 from Kundapura side towards Udupi side?
ii) Whether the petitioner further proves that, the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-05-C-2766, which came from Udupi side and dashed against the bus of the petitioner, and caused him grievous injuries?
iii) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the driver of the Tempo Traveler was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation?
iv) Whether the respondent No.2 further proves that there were more than 12 passengers in the Tempo Traveler and therefore, owner has violated the 48 terms and conditions of the permit and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation?
v) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the seating permit capacity of the Tempo Traveler was 12, whereas, it was carrying 18 passengers and thereby he has violated terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation?
vi) Whether the respondent No.4 proves that, there exists composite negligence of both the vehicles? If so, to what extent?
vii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
viii) What order or award?
7. A memo was filed by counsel for the second respondent for clubbing of all the cases. Accordingly, the cases were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. The claimants in order to substantiate their respective claims, examined themselves and produced documents in support of 49 their respective claims. Though common evidence was recorded by the Tribunal, it has marked the documents in respect of each cases separately. Similarly, it has also referred to the witnesses examined in each case separately. On behalf of the respondents, an official of the Insurance Company by name Peenya Nayak was examined and they produced the deposition of the witnesses in the criminal case to substantiate the contention to demonstrate the cause of the accident is rash negligence of the driver of the bus. On behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company they examined a Police Sub-Inspector by name B.M.Thimmaraju to prove the police papers and an official by name Sri.B.K.Hegde. They have also produced documents, produced in the criminal case such as depositions of Raju Kulal, the complainant and certified copy of the petition filed by the driver of tempo before the Workmen's Compensation Act and the depositions of various other witnesses.
50
8. The Tribunal on consideration of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo and therefore, it held the claimants have established actionable negligence and they are entitled for compensation and the Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount awarded. Thereafter, it considered the claims in each case and has awarded compensation as set out in the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred in all 13 appeals challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding 'negligence'. The claimants have preferred appeals seeking enhancement of compensation in 12 cases.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company assailing the impugned award contended that, when in the petition the claimants specifically pleaded that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving by 51 the driver of the Tempo Traveller and when police registered a case against the Tempo Traveller and in the course of evidence the claimants have also spoken about the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo Traveller and the police papers substantiated the same, the Tribunal committed a serious error in recording a finding that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. Therefore, the said finding is contrary to the evidence on record and is liable to be set aside. Even if the evidence of some witnesses before the Court where they have pointed out that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, it cannot be said that it is the driver of the bus alone who is responsible for the accident. At best it could be a case of contributory negligence and therefore he submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question of negligence requires to be interfered with.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company submitted that, when the 52 Tribunal, on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, has recorded a finding that it is the driver of the bus who is responsible for the accident, as the said finding is based on legal evidence, no case for interference is made out.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants pointed out in each case how the compensation awarded is inadequate and it needs to be enhanced.
12. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are as under : -
(1) Whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus is justified in the facts of the case and does it call for any interference?53
(2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each of the claimants is the just compensation and whether a case for enhancement is made out?
POINT No. (1)
13. The undisputed facts that emerge from the material on record on this issue is, the Tempo Traveller was proceeding from Udupi to Kundapura side. At that time near Karikalkatte of Thekkatee Village, a bus bearing registration No. KA-20-AA-777 which was coming from the opposite direction dashed against the Tempo Traveller. The accident took place at 11.30 AM on 17.5.2004. In the claim petition filed, all the claimants have stated that it is the driver of the Tempo who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake another vehicle and dashed against the bus which was coming from Kundapura side. The police have registered FIR in Crime No. 92/2004 against the driver of the Tempo Traveller on the basis of a complaint given by one K.Riyaz who is the cleaner of the bus involved in the accident. The complainant was not examined before the Tribunal. 54 However, he was examined before the Criminal Court in CC No. 2341/2004 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kundapura. His deposition was marked as Ex.R6. In the Criminal Court he has categorically stated that he did not see how the accident was caused. In other words, he has turned hostile. In the cross-examination he has admitted that the accident was caused in the middle of the road. He came to know about the accident after hearing the sound of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal did not act on his evidence. The Police Sub-Inspector of Gangolli Police Station by name B.M. Thimmaraju was examined as RW1. He deposed that the accident was caused on 17.5.2004 and Ram NayaK, HC 641 has registered the FIR and made the investigation. The said Ram Nayak was not examined. None of the mahazar witnesses were examined though mahazar was marked in the case. The spot sketch was not proved by examining the author of the said sketch. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal held the said police papers are not proved and the case of the claimants that accident took place on account of the rash and negligent 55 driving of the driver of the Tempo is also not established. It relied on the evidence of some of the claimants who have stated that the tempo was going on the left side of the road slowly and it is the driver of the bus who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tempo. The Tribunal noticed that some of the claimants have blamed in their evidence the driver of the bus, some have blamed the driver of the Tempo. In fact, the driver of the bus was also examined and he has also stated that it is the driver of the Tempo who is the cause for the accident. In spite of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus and not the driver of the Tempo. The said finding is not supported by any legal evidence on record.
14. We have looked into the spot sketch. It shows that the accident has happened in the middle of the road. Even if the evidence on record is to be believed of either side, as well as the police papers, it is probable that the drivers of both the 56 vehicles are equally responsible for the said accident. Merely because the author of the sketch is not examined, witnesses to the spot mahazar are not examined, the said document cannot be totally discarded as has been done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal failed to notice that it is not dealing with a criminal case in order to find out whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in order to find out culpable negligence of the accused. It was dealing with a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. What is to be found out is the actionable negligence. In order to find out the actionable negligence, it is the probabilities of the case, the place of accident, after the accident where the vehicles stood, what the witnesses said, what the passengers of the Tempo said who were very much at the time of the accident and also the evidence of the driver of the bus needs to be taken into consideration. All this evidence point out that the drivers of both the vehicles were not careful enough to avoid a head-on collusion on a national highway. In that view of the matter, we find full force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and 57 certainly it is not a case where the entire liability or negligence could be foisted on the driver of the bus. It is a case of both the drivers contributing to the accident and therefore we apportion the negligence on these two drivers equally, i.e., 50% each. Accordingly point No.1 is answered. POINT No. 2
15. In so far as the payment of just compensation for each of these claimants is concerned, we will deal with each case separately.
16. In MVC No. 804/2004, the claimants are the husband, minor son and the father of the deceased Smt. Swarna. During the pendency of the proceedings, the father of Smt.Swarna-Sadashivappa died.
17. According to the claimants, Smt. Swarna though was a housewife she was working as a Tailor and was having income from diary farming. According to the claimants she was earning more than Rs.3,500/- per month and contributing 58 to the family. However, in order to substantiate the said claim, no evidence was adduced. She was aged about 33 years. Rightly, the Tribunal rejected the case of the claimants that she was aged about 30 years as on the date of the claim petition her son was aged about 15 years. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in taking the age as 33 years. In the absence of any evidence to show her income, as the accident was of the year 2004 it took the income as Rs.70/- per day, applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,68,800/- towards loss of dependency to the husband as well as the son. It is that finding which is assailed in the appeal filed by the claimants.
18. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted the accident was of the year 2004, she was a house wife, she was doing tailoring business and she was earning by diary farming and therefore the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.5,000/- as her income.
59
19. If any evidence had been adduced about her income from tailoring as well as diary farming, probably we would have accepted the said argument. No such evidence is forthcoming. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we take Rs.3,000/- as the income of the deceased per month and adopt the multiplier of 16. We deduct 1/3rd towards her personal expenses and therefore the compensation payable under the heading loss of dependency would be Rs.3,84,000/-.
20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses as she was treated in the hospital for 2 days prior to her death. In the facts of this case, it is on the lower side and we award an amount of Rs.16,000/- under this head. We award a total sum of Rs.50,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, the compensation payable would be Rs.4,50,000/-, out of which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,02,800/- and therefore the additional compensation would be Rs.1,47,200/- which we round it off to Rs.1,50,000/- 60 with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
21. In MVC No. 805/2004, the first claimant is the son and the second claimant is the daughter of Smt. Nagamma who died in the motor vehicle accident. Smt. Nagamma was employed in the Indian Telephone Industries and she was drawing a salary of Rs.10,715/- per month. Ex.P37 is the salary certificate. After the filing of the petition, her son-first claimant also died, unmarried. The Tribunal after looking into 11 pay slips of Nagamma noticed that the gross salary was Rs.10,927.59 and net salary was Rs.7,560/- after deductions. However, it declined to grant any compensation under the heading of loss of dependency on the ground that the second claimant was a married daughter. She was not dependent on her mother. She was taken care of her husband and therefore relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in MANJURI BERA Vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER [2007 ACJ 1279] awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as 61 compensation based on Section140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It awarded compensation under the heading of medical expenses, special food, nourishment and attendant charges, conveyance charges, funeral and obsequies expenses and loss of love and affection, in all amounting to Rs.1,01,861/- (which was rounded off to Rs.1,01,900/-). It is this finding which is challenged by the claimants in this appeal.
22. Learned counsel for the claimant assailing the impugned award contends that, if the married daughter was not dependent on her mother, as the mother died leaving behind married daughter as her only legal heir she would be entitled to compensation under the heading of loss to estate. Rs.50,000/- paid under Section 140 of the Act is the minimum payable. The Tribunal did not properly understand the said ruling of the Supreme Court.
23. We find full force in the said contention. In the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, what the Supreme 62 Court has held is, even a married daughter would fall within the definition of a legal representative and she is entitled to maintain a petition for compensation. Section 140 of the Act stipulates a no fault liability i.e., in the case of death, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is payable to the legal representatives without proof of any negligence and that is the minimum amount which is payable. The said judgment has not laid down a law that the married daughter is not entitled to any compensation at all. If the married daughter is not dependent on her mother, she will not be entitled to compensation under the heading loss of dependency. But, certainly she would be entitled to loss of estate when there are no other near relative of the deceased.
24. How, this loss of estate is to be determined is clearly laid down by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.MANAVALAGAN vs KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS [ILR 2004 KAR 3268].
63
25. The aforesaid judgment also lays down the principle whether it is a case of loss of dependency or loss of estate, the calculation to be adopted is one and the same. After arriving at the amount depending upon the facts of the case, i.e., the number of dependents, where they were living, what is the amount contributed to the house, what is the amount saved, the percentage of apportionment. Keeping that principle in mind, in the instant case, the married daughter was not living with the deceased. She was living with her husband. Mother was living alone. She was living with her son. Therefore, she needed 2/3rd of her income towards her personal expenses and all that she could have saved is 1/3rd of her income. 1/3rd would constitute the loss of income in the hands of the daughter. Therefore, after giving deduction to the income tax, taking 1/3rd of her salary as the contribution by way of saving it would come to Rs.3,300/-. The correct multiplier is 11 and therefore Rs.4,35,600/- would be the compensation payable under the head of loss of estate. Rs.50,000/-is already paid. Giving deduction to the same, the balance payable under the 64 aforesaid head would be Rs.3,85,600/-. In so far as other heads are concerned, we are satisfied that the amount awarded is adequate and does not call for any interference. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.3,85,600/- as additional compensation.
26. In MVC No. 806/2004, the claimant is the injured. He was aged about 15 years on the date of the accident. He sustained communated fracture proximal tibia with intracondylar extension and multiple abrasion over the face. He was an inpatient in the hospital for 2 days. He was a student. It is his case that he could not pursue his education for one year. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal awarded Rs.27,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.8,769/- towards medical expenses; Rs.3,300/- towards special diet, nursing, attendant and conveyance charges; Rs.11,250/- towards loss of future income due to disability, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of education and thus in all it awarded 65 a total compensation of Rs.55,319.50 which it rounded off to Rs.55,400/-.
27. No compensation is awarded under the heading loss of amenities. Therefore, in the facts of the case the claimant would be entitled to Rs.25,000/- under the said head. No compensation is awarded towards future medical expenses and in our view the compensation awarded towards special diet, nursing, attendant and conveyance charges is on the lower side. Therefore, we award another sum of Rs.5,000/- each under the aforesaid heads. Thus, in all the claimant would be entitled to Rs.35,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The said amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.
28. In MVC No. 807/2004, the claimant is Smt. Gangamma who was injured in the accident. She was aged about 46 years. The evidence on record shows she suffered chest contusion, posterior dislocation of right hip and cult 66 lacerated wound over the scalp measuring 10 x 20 cms, in the aforesaid accident. The said injuries are grievous in nature. She was working as a coolie. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,000/- under the heading pain and suffering which in our view is on the lower side and we award a sum of Rs.9,000/- as additional compensation.
29. Her income is taken as Rs.70/- per day and only a sum of Rs.1,050/- is awarded towards loss of income during the period of treatment. Having regard to the nature of injuries, atleast she needed rest for 3 months and therefore what is awarded under the said head is on the lower side and we award a sum of Rs.6,000/-.
30. As no compensation is awarded under the heading loss of amenities, we award a sum of Rs.25,000/-.
31. No compensation is awarded under the heading permanent disability or loss of future income. Similarly, no 67 amount is awarded towards future medical expenses and therefore we award Rs.5,000/- under the aforesaid head.
32. An amount of Rs.3,300/- is awarded towards special diet, nursing and attendant charges and conveyance charges which is inadequate and therefore we award an additional sum of Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
33. In MVC No. 808/2004, the claimant was injured and he sustained fracture olecronon with dislocation of radial head right side and fracture tibia right side. His income is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. He was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident. A sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering; Rs.30,220/- towards medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards special diet, nursing and attendant charges, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs.88,200/- towards loss of future income 68 due to disability; Rs.8,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance charges. Thus, it awarded in all a sum of Rs. 1,85,420/- which was rounded off to Rs.1,85,500/-.
34. The compensation awarded under the aforesaid heads is reasonable, except under the heading loss of amenities. Therefore, we award Rs.25,000/- under the said head. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/-, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
35. In MVC No. 811/2004, a boy of 4 years died at the spot. The claimants are his parents. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the heading loss of dependency which is not correct. If a boy of 4 years dies in an accident, the compensation awardable would be Rs.1,50,000/-. 69 Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
36. The child was in the hospital for 8 days. No compensation is awarded towards attendant charges and nourishment. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the said head. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as additional compensation.
37. In MVC No. 813/2004, the claimant is one Smt. Vasantha. In the accident she sustained contusion of right knee. She has been awarded a compensation of Rs.7,000/- under several heads which in our view is inadequate. We award an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/-, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
38. In MVC No. 814/2004, one Smt. Latha is the claimant. She sustained a lacerated wound over the forehead in the accident. She has been awarded a compensation of 70 Rs.6,600/- as total compensation which in our view is inadequate and we award an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- to her.
39. In MVC No. 816/2004, one Smt. Shantha is the claimant. She was aged 31 years on the date of the accident. She is a housewife. She sustained fracture of left humerus with radial nerve palsy in the accident. She was also an inpatient in the hospital for 2 days. Her income was taken at Rs.70/- per day, which is on the lower side. On that basis the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,600/- under the heading loss of income during the treatment period. Therefore, she would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.6,000/- under the aforesaid head.
40. She has been awarded Rs.15,000/- under the heading pain and suffering, Rs.20,042/- towards medical expenses, Rs.3,300/- towards special diet, nursing, attendant and conveyance charges, Rs.49,140/- towards loss of future 71 income due to disability and Rs.6,000/- towards future medical expenses.
41. If we take the income at Rs.6,000/-, she would be entitled to another additional amount of Rs.15,000/- under the heading loss of future income due to disability/loss of amenities. Thus, she would be entitled to Rs.21,000/- as additional compensation, which in our view would be the just compensation.
42. In MVC No. 817/2004, one Smt. Sidda Laxmamma is the claimant. She sustained communated fracture radius and ulna left side and posterior dislocation of right hip. She was aged about 60 years on the date of the accident. She was an inpatient in the hospital for 32 days. She was also working as a coolie. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering which in our view is on the lower side. We award an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the said head.
72
43. A sum of Rs.38,116/- is awarded towards medical expenses which is based on legal evidence and do not call for any interference.
44. Though she was an inpatient in the hospital for 32 years, hardly a sum of Rs.7,800/- is awarded towards special diet, nursing, attendant and conveyance charges. It is on the lower side. Therefore, we award Rs.10,000/- as additional compensation under the aforesaid head.
45. Her income is taken as Rs.60/- per day which is on the lower side and if we take her income as Rs.100/- per day, the loss of income during treatment period awarded at Rs.9,000/- is on the lower side and therefore she would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. 73
46. No compensation is awarded towards loss of amenities. Therefore, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the aforesaid head.
47. The amount of compensation awarded towards future medical expenses is on the lower side, as an implant has to be removed. We award an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- under the aforesaid head. Therefore, in all the claimant would be entitled to Rs.60,000/- as additional compensation.
48. In MVC No. 818/2004, the injured is a minor girl- Veena, aged about 7 years. She sustained undisplaced fracture tibia right side. She was an inpatient in the hospital for 2 days. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,805/- which it rounded off to Rs.25,800/-. We award an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal which constitutes a just compensation. 74
49. In MVC No. 819/2004, the claimant is Mahendra Kumar. He sustained a closed head injury, fracture of clavicle left and fracture Illiac right and 5 other injuries. He was an inpatient in the hospital for 9 days. Though he claimed that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, his income was taken at Rs.4,000/- per month by the Tribunal. He has been awarded Rs.29,000/- under the heading pain and suffering which in our view is on the lower side and we award an additional amount of Rs.11,000/-.
50. Similarly, the income taken at Rs.4,000/- is on the lower side, we take the income as Rs.6,000/- per month and therefore the loss of income during the period of treatment would be Rs.24,000/-, i.e., he is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.12,000/-.
51. An amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities which is also on the lower side. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the aforesaid head. 75
52. We also award an additional amount of Rs.2,000/- under the conventional heads.
53. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.35,000/-, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
54. Hence, we pass the following order:
a) The appeals preferred by the Insurance Company i.e., MFA Nos. 3539/10, 3540/10, 3541/10, 3543/10, 3544/10, 3546/10, 3548/10, 3549/10, 3555/10, 3551/10, 3552/10, 3554/10 and 3558/10 are partly allowed.
b) The Judgment and decree of the Tribunal holding that the driver of the bus alone is the cause for the accident is hereby set aside.76
c) It is held that both the driver of the bus and driver of the tempo traveller are equally responsible for the accident and the contributory negligence is apportioned equally between the drivers, i.e., 50:50. Consequently the amount of compensation payable is to be paid by both the Insurance Companies equally.
d) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company in their appeals shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for distribution of compensation in the respective cases.
e) MFA 2381/10 arising out of MVC 804/04 is partly allowed. In addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal we award a sum of Rs.1,50,000-00 as additional compensation with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount of compensation awarded shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of five years. The first claimant-
husband is permitted to draw the interest accrued on the said deposit periodically.
77
f) MFA 2422/10 arising out of MVC 805/04 is allowed in part. In addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.3,85,600-00 is awarded as compensation which carries interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of five years. However, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on the said amount.
g) MFA 2423 arising out of MVC 806/04 is partly allowed.
In addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.35,000-00 is awarded as compensation with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
h) MFA 2420/10 arising out of MVC 807/04 is partly allowed. An additional amount of Rs.50,000-00 is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The said additional amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 78
i) MFA 2424/10 arising out of MVC 808/04 is partly allowed. An additional amount of Rs.30,000-00 is awarded as compensation in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal which shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
j) MFA 2429/10 arising out of MVC 811/04 is partly allowed. A sum of Rs.1,10,000-00 is awarded as additional compensation in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal which shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
k) MFA 2425/10 arising out of MVC 813/04 is partly allowed. An additional amount of Rs.10,000-00 is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
l) MFA 2427/10 arising out of MVC 814/04 is partly allowed. An additional amount of Rs.10,000-00 is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the 79 Tribunal. The additional amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
m) MFA 2421/10 arising out of MVC 816/04 is partly allowed. An additional amount of Rs.21,000-00 is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
n) MFA 2428/10 arising out of MVC 817/04 is partly allowed. An additional amount of Rs.60,000-00 is awarded as compensation in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
o) MFA 2419/10 arising out of MVC 818/04 is partly allowed. An additional amount of Rs.15,000-00 is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
80
p) MFA 2426/10 arising out of MVC 819/04 is partly allowed. An additional amount of Rs.35,000-00 is awarded as compensation in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The additional compensation shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
Parties to bear their own costs in all these appeals.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE dh/ckl/ksp/-