IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARDATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE $12^{78}$ DAT OF JUNE 2007

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANDATHAN

M.F.A.NO.5078/2005(MV)

BETWEEN

$\overline{\phantom{a}}$

• 1 BASAVANNEVVA W/O.ISHAPPA KORI AGE. 38 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. KANAVI, GADAG
• 2 YALLAPPA ISHAPPA KORI AGE.32 YEARS, COOLIE R/O. MANAVI, GADAG
• 3 NEELAWVA W/O.YALLAPPA KORI SINCE DIED ON 23.3.05

... APPELLANT

(BY SHRI LAXMAN T MANTAGANI & SHRI M.M.HANDRAL, ADVS)

AND

$\overbrace{\qquad \qquad }$

• 1 VITTAPPA S/O.SATYAPPA CHIKKODI MAJOR, DRIVER OF MSRTC BUS NO.MEF 9992
• 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC SHANTINAGAR BANGALORE
• 3 SELF INSURANCE FUND ESRTC, SHANTINAGAR

BANGALORE, BY ITS MANAGER 4 RENAVVA W/O.NAGAPPA LADDI AGE.42 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O.HATTI, GADAG

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADY. FOR R2 & 3, SHAI S.J.PURANIK, ADV. FOR R4)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 8.2.05 PASSED IN MVC NO.72/95 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), AMACT, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING "THE CLAIM PETITI ON FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -

J V D G M E N T

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT is called in question by the claimants on the ground that the income of the deceased was taken as low as Rs.40/- per day as a driver.

2. The learned Counsel Shri D. Vijayakumar for NWKRTC submitted that the accident pertains to the year 1988 and therefore, the income of the deceased could not have been more than Rs.40/- or it could be taken at the most at $Rs.50/-$ per day as a driver and even in the claim petition, the amount mentioned was As.600/- per month.

Having heard 3. $\mathbf{a}\mathbf{B}$ above. $\mathbf{J}^{\mathbf{S}}$ the claim petition came $\mathbf{t} \in$ be amended to indicate the income at Rs.3,000/- per month and taking note of the date of accident, I am of the view that the earnings of the deceased would have been taken at $Rs.80/-$ per day. Applying the multiplier $\circ \mathbf{f}$ '13', the amount under the head of loss. $\mathbf{c}^{\mathbf{F}}$ dependency will work out to Rs.2,49,600/and. thia $i\in$ substituted $in$ the place $\circ \mathbf{f}$ Rs.1, $40, 400/-$ Thus, the compensation gats enhanced by the above increase under the said head. The amount awarded under other heads 90 also the rate of interest remains unaltered. As far as share of third petitioner before the MACT is concerned, it is submitted by the appellants' Counsel that the said petitioner Neelawwa died subsequent to passing of the order. In view of the said submission, the share apportioned by the Tribunal to the said deceased Neelawwa shall be shared by her legal heirs in accordance with law. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 6%

$\mathbf{S}^{\prime}$

from the date of petition till the date of this order and one month after this order, it will be at 7.5%.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

YN.

$\mathcal{L} \sim \mathcal{L} \sim \mathcal{L}$

$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})$