2. SMT. JAYASHRI,
'W/O. SHRI. SANGAYYA MATHAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
HOUSEWIFE.
BOTH ARE RESIDINO
AT MADARKHANDI,
JAMKHANDI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587 301. '
3. SHRI. BHIMAPPA, _
S/O. SHRI. RAMAPPA HIPPA ' .GI~,_
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT HALINGALI,
JAMAKHANDI TALUK, _ _ ..
BAGALKOT DISTRICT :~38'-73o3..a_ E. j.
(BY SR1. N.L. B'A'I'AI{U.RI{:I::f:i¥'OR'Ril &f;_3')""'
(NOTICE TO R-3 IJISIJENSVED \:'.(_i'1'E.{__) - .
THIS ARREALIIIS "ITII';'E'L;-- 'U-gs 173(1) OF' MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT 5:, Aw.A'.RD'=.D*I'*: 03/02/2007 PASSED IN MVC.
NO, 162,,/20053 ON - FILE OF MEMBER, MACT--V,
JAVMZXKHANDI;-.'AWA\RDINC{'A COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,253,000 /-
WITH INTEREST. AT "THE RATE OF 6% RA. FROM THE DATE OF
I=>ETITION._TTII;I,.I'EI;LII'EA=vMENT_
THIS4..APpEIA.I;'~v'COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, TI-IE
V'7'CO4URT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
L
in
JUDGMENT
The appellant Insurance Company is calling in questiongthe
judgement and award dtd. O3/O2/2007 passed in
162/2005. The Tribunal has awarded the
Rs.2,25,000/~ in respect of the death of 14: years oiid
2. The contention of the learniedliicounsel for the._ap.peilant is i’
that the compensation awarded is excgessive since the deceased did
not have any income of his oW’n.~ig.The awarded by the
Tribunal is not ‘The-Vileairnedfcounsel for respondent
however of compensation. The learned
counsel would contendirthat._iin«irespect of 14 years old boy the
Hon7ble Couir’t””h.as__tawarded much higher compensation
and’a_s~su’chgthe same’ does not call for interference.
«V3. The only short point for consideration in the light of the
_c.onte’n.tions.purged is to notice as to whether the compensation of
in respect of the death of 14 years old boy calls for
R”.__inte«rference. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the
4%
deceased boy was a student, though the claimants
he was also helping them in their agricultural
as it may, since there is no proof of income-of the
only question for consideration is evenltin 5-
what is the compensation to be the”
I-Ionb’Ie Supreme Court in recen.t..:decision tl1c…ca;-ie of R.K.
Mallik 85 Another –vs– Kiran SCW 4381)
has indicated the manner of on non-
pecuniary and is of a child and
where determined. Keeping
in View the compensation awarded in the
present case cannot in a.ny'”e’vent«,ibe termed as excessive.
– . A_ 4. I~§E<':§nce__iithe appealvbeing devoid of merit stands disposed of.
Noiiord-eras tocostsfv The amount in deposit shall be remitted to
7",_the Tril3'd,n'a.l'. it ' " "
Sdf
EEJEGE
V __hnm..”fi H