High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Maya vs Sri Pitambar on 23 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Maya vs Sri Pitambar on 23 July, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda And Swamy
-. , 'A  jar) Gangadfiar K3881",

.   ofrangadhar Eiagar.

   are rfc; Kanamadi,

M F3 482?g'2GC3?

{N THE: 1~;IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CERCUET 
AT GULBARGA  .  » _ L"  .

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY 09 JULY,  '   '%
PRESENT    ' »
THE HQEWBLE 1\a'§R.JUS'F1C§§_.V.<i}Oi%§'tE.AGOW.§§'_v1  
'rag HGNBLE MR.J§J3T:CfE "i3.'Vb;§é:§§r:aNAsi$?Ah}:Y

lV£.F'.A.Ko.48'2'_'? g' 2067  V __ 
BETWEEN:   "  1 ._'
1.

Sri Maya, _ if =

W/0 Gangadheir §~i;~:iisa,35, . ”

Age 25 years, ” _

Occ: H.H.W¢i?*k’.- T. x fr,

2. fviachtzzzéral, _ . =
S/0 Dadar Kasar, ‘
Age: 53 years, ‘
O00: Nil?” ” _
3; K1:’s!.1IIii;}a1,”” ‘
/’c;.V1VIa.,c11€;;idre:1AV Iiasar,
Agra: 4&8 y7c:a.;*is,. ”

occ:-:~i.H’.x£rc1~;;:;–.

“-%g€:”4T gvéars,
*–Mi;r;Gr_,_ Riipmaented by
19%] A91 Maya,

T’q. 35 m. Bijapur —- 53:5. 101. ..§§PPE3I,LAN'{‘S

(By Sri V.S.K0ttem1avar, Adm)

\»/

MFA 482’?/1289?

O\

10. Therefore, if the loss of dependency of the App:€§I1a:ifi$ i$

vmrksd out taking the monthly income of the daceassgifit’

ané deducting 1/31*’ towarcis his §erso:3é}V ‘e::.p¢i}seg; Ht1i1€ ‘

multipliar of 1?, having regard to the age éif Eicccétsffé .f0u£1§:i’~tcn:V ‘:3:

24 ysars at the time of accident __}a’w_ifiiifiixaziéivixfiby tiiiz’ V

Apex Court in the case of Vs.’ «’I3a!]1i./§Transport
Corporation rrsported 2909″ would work out
to Rs.26€;37x:1i?.x1? -:4_§<a,_5,4~4 ,'C16f25,§5'§ Rs.5,44,(}0O/-.
Accelfiillgly, the

11. .. egnmigensafion towards meéica}
expenses is ..a’p?g}}ants have not produced 32:13;
bills inwards 3 reasenable compensation of
R§,;5,0o0;,:_;ff of Rs,s,0<)ce;~ is awamec: towards

fufiaral 'expt,:*1_Se:s. .< A' ' '.,.

$0 316 cempensatian 229 be awarded towards

7 fl1€ other cfotnéztnéidnai heads gush as hsafls lass cf €?(3I1SO1"'iiE3£Il, 1033

4. Eéxfai a3;:§_ aifééfion arzci £038 cf estate, havisrig regarii to {ha age of the

*.V:.§ie<'§_e&;a$£t£i"'ai thfi £13133 sf accident a sum of Rs.10,GOO/~– gash is

V _ Vax§%}a.n:Ve:i. V

.' –

MFA 482?[2§0?

NI

13. in the result and for the fartizgaing reasons, this 3′-fjfigal is
allowed in part. ‘T316 impugnad judgment and award
is set aside. The compensation to which the ap§.€’1>1′;$i’§1tS;é.A§’L°i;if£1éI’i%$V b

are Entitled to is cietermined and fixed Rs_§}5′,é?4,QQU/.}_j %a;;xgg«%m1

6% intezest per annum from the “of pfifiuafi j;=a};111ant]’
deposit of the awaxfied 8_fl’1()i,1v3’1?f.. T}’1£’3′,. b’€t ‘depoaiitsd by the
izxsurances compafly Within si3~: ixi«’fl:;.€:’}’:”$’L.+§..a”f€ Of Iticzeipt of the
capy of this Juc1gme:1:t,. fi’}1¢ up the awafii

in the above tc1:tI1$.”

Sd/-

JUDGE

%%%%% JUDGE