I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25%: DAY OF AUGUST
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE1\/ER. JUSTICEAS. BORANNAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOLA?1"82./QDU9Vim/I\f}1;_'S
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER _ -
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. _
N.K. COMPLEX, I<ESHwA'pI;R,'HUBLI_ .
REPRESENTED BY THE ASST, IvI.ANAO;ER'
REOIOIv§AL'_OEB*IC:E_,\'LAIVIINGTON ROAD
HUBLI ... APPELLANT
(BY SR1 CS;'=BAE;vNNI;__ADVO.;CATE)
_____
I ~ .. 1v1AHADE'v.APPA SOMAPPA GAIKAWAD
A<}Ev:I.v45F;EARS, OCC: NIL
'-KR/O ITIGATTI, TQ: DHARWAD
; 2 BASAPRA @ BASAVARAJ
~ S /Q': MAHADEVAPPA GAIKAWAD
A ._AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
A = ._ _'R/O: ITIGA'I"I'I, TQ: DHARWAD
i _;s_ KUMAR RAVI S /O MAHADEVAPPA GAIKWAD
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
J
,-
*0
R/O: ITIGATT1, TQ: DHARWAD
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
MINOR GUARDIN, RESPONDENT NO}
4 BABU S /O: KALLAPPA HOOLI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF’
MOTOR BIKE EEARING REG. _ 1- ” ‘– .
NO:KA25/L 1570,12/O: H.1\Ic:’.3/4* ._ -s
1ST CROSS, SAPTAPUR, GOJA’-._ *
COMPOUND, K.C.D. ROAD, DHARWAD
THIS APPEAL IS, E1LED_….u,ENSAT1ON OF
RS.3,80.I,0GO./1;: a$A?1T’II; INTEREST ‘@vV65/0 P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION T”iLL,..T}’¥{E ‘DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS APPE’AL”4V’CO’IvI1,NU{‘ ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT D.ELIVVERED THE FOLLOWING:
” ….. ..vJ1g.DGMENT
–.,T1a.§V’~Ia:,’pRDeElant — insurance Company is Calling-<ir1
quehstibnvtt'SIé%fjI3.1CiVgment and award dt. 23.01.2009 passed in
— , V MVC1ENO,’3,4S/S 2007. J?
,,-v–
(0
. REVSPONDVENTS *
document there is no other document available on record to
indicate that the age of the deceased was anything other
than what is indicated therein. What is being projegclteédris
that the age of the second claimant is indicated
in the cause title. That allegation cannot _b..e,_l_thei’ci*iteria”
since it is also indicated that thejsecond; ciaii:n’ant’–was
student and therefore the th.ere can ‘also be. and erifoit
Therefore, mereiy on assumptioln,it~cannother unless
there is something conc1’ete. agelliofii the first
claimant / husband indicated and the age of
second ‘son ‘1’nd’ic_at–ed as 15 years and in all
probability .._the age in the postmortem report
appears-~to be correct. i’Since ultimately the compensation
llgranlted irespectlllolf death and the claimants are none
other Virmisband and two sons, the compensation of
RS3,-S0,0_()D not excessive. Therefore the same does not
for interference. Accordingly the appeal being devoid of
it “merit stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
3
‘a
The amount in deposit may be transferred to
Tribunal.
In View of disposal of “:_’t’h;-.3” appeol .
104608/2009 stands disposed of sa.i1ie«dVoAesJ§not
survive for consideration.
BNS