Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

B Ravi @ B Ravi Poojary vs Balakrishna Gowda And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|18 October, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.197/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
1 . B RAVI @ B RAVI POOJARY S/O LATE DUGGAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
2 . SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O B RAVI @ B RAVI POOJARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3 . JAGADISH S/O B RAVI @ B RAVI POOJARY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 4 . ASHA D/O B RAVI @ RAVI POOJARY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHANDRAHASA NILAYA, MELANTHABETTU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BHAVYASHREE NILAYA ASHOK NAGAR, CHILIMBI, MANGALURU, D.K DISTRICT – 55012.
..APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BALAKRISHNA GOWDA S/O MONAPPA GOWDA, ADULT, R/A NAVULE HOUSE, BADAR POST & VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K DISTRICT - 574 242 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LOCAL OFFICE: BHARATH BUILDING 3RD P.M.RAO ROAD, MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ..RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.04.2018, PASSED IN MVC No.906/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & MACT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for orders on I.A., in the nature and circumstances of the case I.A.1/2019 is allowed. Delay of 120 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is taken up for final disposal.
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 30.04.2018 passed in MVC No.906/2017 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge & MACT, D.K., Mangaluru, wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.22,72,0000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization came to be granted to the petitioners.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. It is stated that Chandrahasa, son of petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of petitioners 3 and 4 was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19-V-807 from Guruvanakere towards Uppinangady slowly by following rules and regulations of traffic, when he reached Michinadka Odilnala Village of Belthangady Taluk, at about 8.40 a.m., driver of bus bearing registration No.KA-20-A-3825 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from opposite direction by overtaking an autorikshaw and dashed to the motorcycle. In the result Chandrahasa fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Belthandy for treatment where doctor examined him and declared dead. It is stated that petitioners spent Rs.2,00,000/- for transportation of dead body and income that was earned by Chandrahasa was Rs.2,32,950/- p.a. and he was working as a recovery agent in Sri Ram Finance, Belthangady. Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is brother of deceased and petitioner No.4 is sister of deceased Chandrahasa.
4. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that Chandrahasa was getting salary of Rs.9,539/- per month as recovery executive and also running a fancy store in the name of Mahalakshmi Fancy Store at Gerukatte. He would further submit that Chandrahasa was an income tax assessee.
5. Learned Member has considered income of deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and future prospects at 40% being bachelor and 1/2 was deducted towards personal and living expenses and net income was considered as Rs.10,500/- per month and multiplier `17’ as the deceased is stated to be 28 years. Thus compensation of Rs.21,42,000/- is granted on the head `loss of dependency and insofar as love affection Rs.1,00,000/-, conveyance charges Rs.5,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and other expenses.
6. Compensation granted by the learned Member is just, fair and proper. I find there is no necessity of interference from any angle. Appeal is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, appeal is rejected at the preliminary stage itself.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

B Ravi @ B Ravi Poojary vs Balakrishna Gowda And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
18 October, 2019
Judges
  • N K Sudhindrarao