IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 25 day of November 201 1 Before THE HONBLE MRJUSTiCE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS C!w M F i\No.20650/2009(MV) In MFA No.20651/2009 BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Dharwad, Represented by its Divisional Manager, NCMarket Shreenath Complex, Hubli, Reptd. by its Regional Manager, Regional Office 2B, Unity Building, Annexe, PKalingarao Road, Bangalore. . . . Appellant 1. Srnt. Hemavati. W/o Chandraqouda Patil, Age: 30 years, 0cc: Household, Work, R/o Kurtkoti. Tq. Gadag. 2. Kumsri Kamala D!o Chandragouda, Ace: 10 years, Ccc: Student, P/c Kur/kc)ti, T 1 Gadag. :2: Since minor represented by Natural mother petitioner No.1 Smt. Hemavathi Chandragouda Path 3. Smt. Laxmawa. Wio Krishnagouda PatH, Age: 60 years, 0cc: Household Work, Rio Kurtkoti Tq. Gadag. 4. Husansab Buddansab Jamakhana Age: 50 years, 0cc: Transport Business, Rio: Jakani Bhavi Road Gouli. Galli Bhusappa Chowk Dharwad. ... Respondents (By Sri. Basavaraj M.Mekki, Advocate for RI Sri. Anoop G.Deshpande, Advocate for R3 Sri. R.H.Angadi, Advocate for R4) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 07.11.2008 passed in MVC No.72/2005 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, and Member, MACT, Gadag, awarding the compensation of 6,20,000i- along with the interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition dated 21.04.2005 till to the date of deposit. In MFA No.2065112009 BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Company Limited. Divisional Office. Dharwad. Sarswati Sadan. Court Road. 4_ Dharwad. Reptd. by its Regional Manager. Regional Office 2-B, Unity Building, Annexe, P.Kalingarao Road, Bangalore. .. Appellant (By Sri. G.N.Raichur. Advocate) AND: 1. Smt. Tangewwa. Wio Govindreddy @ Govindappa Gadareddy, Age: 34 years, 0cc: Househod. Work, Rio Kurtkoti, Tq. Gadag. 2. Prakash, Sb Govindreddy @ Govindappa Gadareddy. Age: 17 years, 0cc: Student. Work, Rio Kurtkoti, Tq. Gadag. Since minor represented by Natural mother Respondent No.1 Smt. Tangewwa Wio Govinc!reddy © Govindappa Gadareddy, 3. Smt. Mallavva, W/o Mallareddy Gadareddy; Age: 74 years, 0cc: Household Work. Rio Kurtkoti Tq. Gadag. 4. Hasansab Budansab Jamakhana Age: 54 years, 0cc: Transport Business, Rio: Jakani Bhavi Road Gouli. Galli Bhusappa Chowk Dharwad. . .. Respondents (By Sri. Basavaraj M.Mekki, Advocate for RI) (R4 - served) r :4: This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 07.11.2008 passed in MVC No.71/2005 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge? and Member, MACT. Gadag. awarding the compensation of 5,98,000I- along with the interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition dated 21.04.2005 till to the date of deposa. These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following: JUDGMENT These two appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 7 th November 2008 in MVC Nos.71/2005 and 72/2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gadag. 2. Shri G.N.Raichur. learned counsel for the appellant. firstly, contends that the Tribunal committed an illegality in holding that on account of rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry, the accident had taken place when there is contributory negligence. Ex.P.1 is the FIR. Ex.P.2 is the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the MVI Report. The criminal case is registered against the driver of the tipper lorry. Before the Tribunal driver of the tipper lorry :5: was not examined. In the absence of any evidence on the side of the appellant, The Tribunal rightly held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry. This finding of the Tribunal is support by the evidence on record and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. 3. The second grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal committed a mistake in granting higher compensation in MVC No.7212005 under the head loss of dependency. It is not in dispute that on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 32 years and the Tribunal rightly applied 16 multiplier. On the date of the accident, the deceased was an agriculturist and the accident was of the year 2005 and the Tribunal had taken monthly income of Rs.4,500/- and deducted 1I3 of it towards personal expenses and the same is in accordance with law. Therefore. the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency is in accordance with law. :6: 4. Even in MVC No.71/2005, the deceased was aged about 40 years. The Tribunal had taken 14 multiplier and actually it should have been 15. Even in this case, the deceased was an agriculturist and the accident was of the year 2005 and the Tribunal had rightly taken the monthly income at Rs.4,500/- and deducted 1/3m towards personal expenses. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency is in accordance with law and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, appeals are hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law. Sd/a JUDGE Kms