The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Miss M Prasanna Pavani D/O Late ... on 12 October, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Miss M Prasanna Pavani D/O Late ... on 12 October, 2009

Bench: N.K.Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, _V
:PRESENT: _%'u %
THE z~1oN'm.E MR. JUsT;cE   3
AND    M  V .

TI-IE HoN'BLE MR. JUSTIC1E__ K.N}   _

M.F.A.NO. 12004; 2006A-{Mv}%: 
B EN: , V _   . 
The New India 

   

Through. Vits 'Regionaﬁ.   '
At Ne...V2;'~«E';_ Unity. B'i.1£1di'r"1g Annexe,
vIvIiSsAi_Qi; Raga, Bangalo'1't=56O 027.
'.Rep.. Byv--'i.ts._ Depufy..Mar;ager,
sri;c.R.sub1=3,mai:«yaA,%{

 -   ._  ' ...Appeilant

(B"},§ Sr*i: B C"E':§é:'t'11a1;::a1na Rae, Advocate]

 ~.  Pfasanna Pavani.
A Aged':-'About 25 Years.

 2 "Miss M.Swathi.

" '  Aged About 24 Years.

  Miss M.Jyotsna,
7 Aged About 20 Years. :7'



2

All are daughters of Late Muniswamy,
Residing C / o Sri.K.Muralik,

16--709, Rajaji Street,

Old Town, Ananthapur (AP).

 Res§jori_dei:.ts
{By Sri: K Srihari, Advocate for R1 to R3 )  

It-'*** _;  

This MFA is filed U/S 173(i.1g¢5gMdv rXctA.agains:t'~tAhe._V
judgment and award datedziii-1../08/'2._0"06 padssgedgin  V >
No. 1263/2003 on the ﬁle "ogf"=the I 'Adci.1.'"_:Ci-Vi1"Judge '

{S1'.DI1) 8: CJM & Member MAC'i'3V_, Mangaiore,
awarding compensation of" R.s.12L.Q2,000'/~"" together
with interest @ 8% p;'a.T'fro';n :;i1ve"date"of petition till the
date of deposit.    .  *

This   wivieaiing, this day,

 delivered the foliowing:
'"dgUDGMENT

is ' T his 'api9_eal"'b3.f'th'e insurer is directed against the

 and avsrard dated 151 August 2006 passed by

1   Vet} Civil Judge, [Senior Division) and

M.'A.cifr;,Ci/iangaiore in M.V.C.No.i263/2003. The

   respondents 1 to 3 are the ciaimants.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 ﬁled clairn petition, seeking total compensation of Rs,l5.00 lakhsj death of their father, Sri.Munuswamy, motqr vehicle accident that occm-t'red~ on 16-07-2003 near Vidhya Peeta Hassan on account of was' travelling colliding agexinst tree by the side of the road. 4' Z V 2 h

3. T he -- by the insurer of the on assessment of the quantiﬁed the loss of dependency' -- by taking the income of the dec'ea:sed.T'at"- l§s.l2,000/- per month and by the mnltinlier of '12' after deducting 1/3rd expenses of the deceased. The Ti-ib_un,e~1~ new-eee a sum of Rs.50,000/-- under eoenventional heads. T hus, the Tribunal awarded total '' niﬁensation of Rs.12,02,000/- and directed the /"

insurer of the offending Vehicle to satisfy the entire award, with interest. D

4. Aggrievecl by the said award, filed this appeal, inter alia, eont:en'di--ngux has committed error in Vtakiiig' deceased at Rs.12,000/~ Slalaryli' d Certiﬁcate produced V'.33.r__ they pshodvlved the gross salary of the deceased and that the multiplier of is also iI1'1P1'0P€r_5' it i V"

of of this appeal, the resporideiritsi appeared through their learinedpp it We' havevlmheard the learned counsel appearing A on;-bot.h"s_ideVs.,a.nd perused the records. '7___; is no dispute that the deceased was an employee in Corporation Bank as on the date of the it "accident and death. Ex.PH is the Salary Certiﬁcate in respect of the deceased for the month of June 2003, i.e. the month previous to the date of accident. per Ex.?11, the gross salary of the deceased:"««.l_lwas Rs.11,126/-- and the only permissible Salary Certificate, Ex.P14, was towards professional tax. It is;Vth.el "corite_ritio11 learned counsel for the that_ th.eid:eceas'ed: was" d an income Tax assesses and to--rpagr income tax, therefore, some deducted towards gross salary.

However, the monthly income of thed.gceeasg;:tatlt&:éa%; 1 per EX-P11. the date of birth Vithel 12.08.1953 and he died on I6.7--.2Q03l"' 'I:'herefore,Va.s on the date of the accident, he . Wasla£it'ethe__vergell"'ot completing 50 years ar1d-- he had of service in the Bank. Therefore, the Tribunal .apr3ears to have added some amount towards the ft1't-Ltre prospects of the deceased and has taken the Q' "~V_iVz'1co'rI1e at Rs.12,0()O/-- per month.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error committed 'hystthe Tribunal in assessing the monthly deceased at Rs.12,000/» and quantifyingtheiilossof. dependency on that basis. This :.isfr1ot "the. 'ease for interference by this C0ur't.-4\__where "the assessed the monthly income}t'at:Rs_.12",O'0rj/L though the gross saiary of the vdeseaséed;_mrasf:Rs;t1>1,126/-- and he had another 10. yearswof service date of the accident ~ rightly deducted 1/3rd pfersonai'.."e3:nenses of the deceased and has uta1V§e11.Vthe'wrernaining 2/ 3nd, viz. Rs.8,000/-- as Iosseef dependellcy to family as the deceased has left _ - b¢hinCi"t0n1yhis ﬁwdtanghters, as dependents. Out of the three' one was minor as on the date of the petition.' are to be married. Therefore, all these factorsv-xinust have weighed in the mind of the Tribunal, ». assessing the loss of dependency.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the total compensation of Rs.12,Q2;O;(l)lQ_/--. The rriultiplier adopted by the accordance with the principles. law""Eald':.d0Wn "

several decisions of the Apex at.

point of time. Therefore, Wepvnsee n0"mer.it in t'his--VVappea1.'V. ' Accordingly, the appeal is disrhissed:

The Statutory n the appellant before this Ccriia<t_ is;1"6fd'e§§eci '~tfo.V_bé- trahsmitted to the Std/=5 KUDGE tttttt .. Sgﬁ 3'€§B%E " HBMV*/SP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court