High Court Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Govt Insurance … vs Renukamma on 3 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Govt Insurance … vs Renukamma on 3 September, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao H.Billappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED ms THE 03"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2Eoo9TTT%.AAE' 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE» K.sR.EEeHA'eE~AAeAe  A"

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JU.S_f'F!CE l?{Bl_LL,AF5-E'AA..;V""" 

MEA.No.7364/2604 (W) O "
BETWEEN:     A

Karnataka Govt. 1;1's1_1_ranc:e""  * .1:
Department, 3   =i 
By its Directcr';   _-- '     
MotorBranch, P93;BoVx'Nd';5325;-T'  '
VEswesh_waraiéIh_    
Bangatcare ----1* H  

% %    .. APPELLANT
(By Sri.S'E1'nVgamesTnTé.;;'AAEi'v~.j: " v 

AND:    _

 A -T , V S'TrTt.F3§enfl§<ammeV,' AAAAA 
1 We/0 .!ate._G~.Hariumantharayappa,

'Age-_d ae.e;2tvv34".Ty.ears,

2. Masterwareéh,

 é  Slo.|atcé Henumantharayappa,
"   about 18 years,

 . A  'Pa!-ester Nandssh,
   S/io.Eate Hanumantharayappa,
A , = -Aged about 14 years,

«V

 



Bang_a!_ore-55.  V.  .. RESPONDENTS
 V.  .,(E-SyiéiriIiisershagirii Rao, Adv. for R1, 5 8: 6;

A  .Sri...M.S,vNa;'avyan__, Adv. for R7)

~V judgrnentfitaward dated 19--6~04 passed in MVC.No.3189/O0
  '-on the7t_i_!e of the XJX Add!.SmaJ! Causes Judge, MACT,
'' 'V.'s»BariI-galore (SCCH-17) awarding compensation of
-- T ".Ffts..4,_6'3,000/-- with interest at 6% par & directing the appellant
--  herein to deposit the same.

4. Master Raghavendra,
S/o.!ate Hanumantharayappa,
Aged about 10 years,

5. Sri.G-angappa,
S/o.!ate Honnappa,
Aged about 69 years. 
6. Smttvlariyamma,

W/o.Gangappa,

Aged 63 years.

R2 to 4 are minors, rep.~*'b..y A
Natural guardian R.1 i.e.*,«--_  _ 
Smt.Renukamma. I

All are r/a.Thotadag;udda_ha!!itjfi
DasanapurayHobtig1;"'i  . ' 
Nagasandra Pc_,:st,V  .   ;
E-Eangalonre N'o.rth-- 'i7aluk. 3  V  *

7. The*,Asst-. Evngineer',
No.1 , Water. Supply Di.visio'n,.4 
Matteswaram; 1 8'1"'Cro.se,_""_;.

to iiThisti:\;i;FA is filed u/s.173(1) of MV Act against the

4/



This MFA coming for hearing this day, K.Sf?EEDHAR
RAO, J., delivered the foliowing:~
J U D G M E N T

One Hanumantharayappa died in a motor_4…viehiic.Ie

accident caused by the vehicle insured with the app:e!ia’nt,;’L:~: T.

2. The occurrence of the acc.id,ent, ri’eg’!ig:erj.ce’~ofthe T”

driver of the offending vehicle and coverage of i’nsi.:rani’ce.”is[

not in dispute.

3. The deceased wasi.vvcirLi<iflQ..tAas..a"Firtteriin a Mill.
The Tribunal has assessed at Rs.4,ooo/–,
which appears to.}oe.. of credibie
proof of scythe deceased to be
pavreréts, wife and three minor
childrenhave compensation. As per unit

system, 1/é"'–r.Vdis'vto' beA'ded…rjcted towards personal expenses.

of depenée.ncy would be Rs.2,500/- pm. The

Ldeceasediwasiiiaged about 38 years at the time of his death.

'15' multiplier has to be applied. The total loss of dependency
would be (Rs.2,500/- income x 12 months x 15 mVn'i't.ip!i.er)

es.4,5o,ooo/-. The wife would be entitled

towards loss of consortium.

entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards IZE:-s’s7′.A_A_of’V
Rs.10,000/- towards funeral eérpehses. A.’i”h_e all, ” it
are entitled to comm?-nsatErortVV:.’ltfot’-»__Rs..’5′,1’O~,0e{3/-. The
compensation awarded v’i»ii:s”;4.’.,63,000/-, which

is less than the arnount VVadre§.ev’ntitled to. Hence’,
the appeal of compensation is
dismissed: fa 4′ it A Z

551/-

JUDGE

…..

}UDGE

BSAS;-._