"Ofiep. i:é_' fieputy Manager.
-new-nu vu I\r\l'\l'l"'II.l1l\I'\ HIV?! LA_,§'Ig;"|_"'.-* KARNATAKA
_ COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGR COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C
IN THE wen coum 09' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA V
DATED THIS THE 1313 DAY cm é
BEFQW53 M V 3 1'
THE HONBLE Dr.
BEFWEEN:
The Divisional Managér, _ .v ~
The New India Assurance C:<_3V.f§»..t:;l., V
Branch omcc, 1060/2,, Rom, ; ..
Dist: Kolagaur-fi~'1t$S€)2,€L " _
Insuxef C3°'1e':.: ~ O :
Through its ODi*ris:ima1O.MaIxag9r:O'
New India}-':ss11_%rana:;e' Ltd, ,
Savgasneahiwai-..N'aga:, .. '
S.B."E'cmp1e*Ro'agi~,._ "
Gulbaigag V
By_VRegi<')*
V» 130.238, Uni'1y._13ui£dia1g Annexe,
3 (Missa.ic.n'i?oad),
'i3a::gaLoraV~5,~so 027,
...APPELLAN'I'
""*{By./_SriOFiAB.Raju &
.. Sri. M.Sudarshan, Advs.)
O I
1. Laxman,
S] ofleemaraya Ganpur,
Age: 46 years,
Ooc: Agiculture,
R] o. Hattikuni Taluk,
Yadgir Dist,
Gulbarga.
.......... .. sunnuvnirlnrl :1I\.:$'l'I \:..!..",i_:l!KI Ur KARNATAKA i-HGH COURT OF XARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C
2. Smt. Tippamma,
W] o.Laxman Ganpur,
Age: 42 years,
(300: Houschoid,
R] o. Hattikuni Taluk,
Yadgir Dist,
Gulbarga.
3. Sri.Amjad,
S/o.Md.Yousuf,
Ooc: Onwcr of vehicle
Lorry bearing
No.KA--()1/5140,
H.N'o.14,S'h Cross, V -
Someshwar Nagar,_ ; _ ~
Jayanagar 1-st B1o¢k,'i:~,_-' i _
Bafig&1orc»550,fi1'1.r " ..
...RESPONDEN'I'S
This :1] s. 1'?3{1) of M.V.Act
with a prayer to _asir1c t11e...«J:1dgment & Award dt.2{).2.2008
passed in MVC NO.346£'2QG5_Gn_Tt§1€'fi}E of the Add1.MACT, Yadgir
This - comm' g on for admission,
this day, the _ Court-.déEiv¢i '_ed ':1_:he* following: --
JUDGMENT
I Company is before this Court
‘1’.Z?3(A}T,) of M.V. Act praying for setting aside the
” Award dated 20.02.2008 made in MVC
on the file ofAdd1. MAC!’ at Yadgr.
T ” Learned counsel for the appellant haé urged the following
i) the Tribunal erred in detczmining the income of the
deceased at Rs.3,000/ ~ per month;
L
mun uuuxl or mxmnnxa HIGH eozgm or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH count or KARNATAKA HIGH ca
ii) the Tribunal erred in deducting only 1
personal expenses and applying mulfipliesfz. a1;’?;.’c£.e’ ~
awarding compensation of Rs.3,84,0OQ,L;.. __ ”
iii) the Tribunal failed to notice em¢~e.¢ecea,-em
bachelor and failed to dedi.«;c%t?.s(>6/5 b~f__ i3..is
towards personal expeneeaof
3. He has cited the following deVci:{ibn$i«».,LA
a) cm 2008 so 067 (RAMES H »SIN.G:V}§I§~I§_’_’.ANOTHER v/s.
SATBIR SINGEI .4%,ND;;A§i:C)’_IfH the of muitiplier.
b) ILR 2005I{.51R. ‘4?%.164″‘{§3~.ULAig£HEADER AND ANOTHER
v/s.,%:,rrs1rrr3x_*)j”‘ ;*’1§,N..DiAt V._:V’INS–URAi*iCE co.L’m., AND
that in the cases axising out of
deatil ef aV ‘isV~”no1’ma1 to deduct 50% of the
income inwards expenses.
ma 2″‘Re9?”Fldenfe”‘e1e the parents of the deceased son,
died in the motor accident. They have
of Rs.12,50,000/- on the ground that the
‘ of the deceased was Rs. 16,000] »~. In support of
the ciaimants, Cfaimant No.1, viz., father of the
n got himself examined as P.W. 1 besides examining
Deiiappa as P.W.2 and got marked documents E.xs.P–1 to P-12.
effhotigh the claimants have stated the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.16,000/-, P.W.1’-fhther of the deceased has stated
on oath before the Court that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/ —
mun uuufil ur ISAKNAIAKA Hifil-E QOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA RIG?! COURT OF KARNATAXA MGR COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C
per month by doing agzticultural work. Ex.P-10 to Ex.
R.O.f2 cxtzacts standing in the name of P.W.l. ‘
disbciievcd the income of the deceased at”RS;6<,0Q*i/ O
same at R's.3,0G()/– per month and' tI:1e:
towards personal expenses and C{)fiIj)t3I1$a:1'.1iv2:)IV1V'L"£vvN'"O"'(i'VI:(}1lbt V
the Tribunal has applied nfmitipligr-.-r– of as the
deceased' mothefs age has Thcxeis no
dispute about the f11e«.,é;bpvé 'two cases.
5. I{eeping5i:1’V1 fixfi income of the
deceased of Rs.6,()00/–, the
grounds flats appellant, holds no water.
The in favour of the claimants \§*ha_Va1*e as uxiéierr ..... H < . __ V Rs. of 3,84,0G0~OO
V fA§’:;nc14éalv_E)xpenses 2,000-00
1V.,,1\21¥5gf.&)f estate, love
7 231d afiection 10900-00
__–____–____—-
The impugned Judgment does not call for interference by
this Court.
L
mun uuuru ur RAKNAIAKA I-liGl-I OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGHCGJRT OF KARNATAKA HIGHCOURT CF KARNATAKA HIGH C’
6. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby
dismissed. The statutory deposit made by the appeflant
case be transmitted to the ‘I’n’bu13ai forthwith. \_ ‘
bnv”‘