IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A. No. 296/2017 [MV] BETWEEN :
VIJAYA FERNANDEZ S/O B.S. FERNANDEZ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PATHRABAIL HOUSE LAILA POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. ARUNSHYAM M., ADV.) AND :
1. SMT. VIDYA W/O LATE SRIDARA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 2. MASTER KAUSHIK S/O LATE SHRIDARA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS (REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. VIDYA) BOTH ARE R/AT D.NO. 1-123, THANNIRUPANTHA, BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K., MANGALURU – 574 326.
3. SRI VENKAPPA ACHARYA S/O LINGAPPA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, 4. SMT. LEELAVATHI, W/O VENKAPPA ACHARYA ...APPELLANT AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESPONDENT NO’S. 3 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO. 2-78B, KADAMBU HOUSE PERNE, BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 325.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY ADV. FOR R1 TO R3. R2 – MINOR, REP. BY R1. R2 AND R3 ARE LR’S OF R4.) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 728/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 11,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Member, MACT, D.K., Mangaluru, in awarding compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- payable by the appellant.
2. On 17.05.2013 at about 7.45 a.m, while the deceased was riding the motor cycle and proceeding from his house towards Uppinagandy on the left side of the tar road very slowly and carefully by observing rules and regulations of the traffic and on reaching near Kalleri Bandashale, Karaya Village at that time, the driver of the bus who drove the bus in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and came extremely wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on all parts of the body and the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, sought to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent- claimants sought to support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. It is seen that the bus which involved in the accident is not insured. Hence, the appellant has been directed to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month and considering the number of dependants and age of the deceased, has correctly awarded the compensation under all the heads and fastened the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation which is just and proper. There is no scope for interference, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Nm