,r..=r ;
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 3"'DAx OF FEBRBARY 20IOf¢S;
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.JUSTICE H R.NAGAMOHRfi §AS*_
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO 3D3I0.0T éaogwflf
BETWEEN
PARVATHAMMA
W/O. MDNAYYA,
AGE:65 YEARS
OCC HOUSEHOLD, T- K_fi:
R/O. TURKONDINNI vILLASE,I
TO & DIST: RAICHUR;' '»I Vjz_ APREILANT
{BY SRI SESRyRRRJ R MATE, AQVTJIWS
L ORIENTAL INSURAHCE«CO. LTD,
REPRESENTED By THE BRANCH MANAGER,
AD1ST FLOOR, KATKAM KRISTAIAH COMPLEX,
.4 CITY TALRIES ROAD,
.RfiICHUR_ .fl.. .....
_"¥REASA"RDSsAIR S/O CHANDAWALI,
WDgMAJOR,*QCC OWNER CUM DRIVER OF MOTOR CYCLE,
_ R/O SRRADIRNI VILLAGE,
* TO MANVI, DIST RAICHUR. ..RESPONDENTS
(Si SRI VEERESR B PATIL, ADV. FOR R1)
I MFA IS FILED U/S.I'73'(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
TMODIFY THE JUDGbEN'I' AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MACT
FCT-III, RAICI-IUR OR 28.4.2007 IN MVC NO.
248/2006.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ET
M2"
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the juddrnent
and award dated 28.4.2007 in MVC
passed by the MACT at Raichur in so’A”..fa.’i_i”~as
relates to the inadequaeiffl ‘ of, Cornpensation.
awarded.
firstly contends that deceased was a
carpenter and a sez;.i§i—-s}§il;lae’d~.__p.er.son. This Court
and the Apex’ Courtmpihas taken the
view that daily an unskilled
coolie :ulbpe–.jv.t~aken– at Rs.l00/- per day.
Therefore”, tI:e.”i:nr:ioi:1e””<e'"f a semi–skilled carpenter
is 119 be4"4"tf'-91ke.n- minimum of Rs.3,500/"" Per
thisV""'b'asis, the appellant is entitled
for"ad~d_it.ilona–l compensation of Rs. 3,000/-.
3__'." The Tribunal has not granted any
compensation towards transportation of the dead
it Under this head, the appellant is entitled
. ___€%'or additional compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Even
the compensation awarded under the heads loss of
estate and loss of love and affection appears to
be on the lower side. Therefore, the appellant is
2. Learned Cot-‘nse_Vl for Aa.;appel3lant.:l.
-3-
entitled for another sum of Rs.2,000/m under
these heads. Therefore, the appellant in all is
entitled for additional compensationw_» of
Rs.10,000/~ and to this extent, the iamard
requires modification.
4. For the reasons’ stated <ah§vg,l";p§
following order:
The appeal is partly allowedi %fhe7impugnedV
judgment and awarg daitedij ‘2ap.4.2oo7 “Vin MVC
No.248/2006 passed ‘£y'”t5é; Mfidfx at Raichur is
hereby modified_enhaneihg the total compensation
fronLehs;i;i5,26§/ée”to Rs:l;85,200/~. Remaining
all other Vaspeets;£hthe impugned award remains
intaot and undistfirbed.
5% iit is made clear that the appellant is
A”rnot g”entitled for interest on the enhanced
compensation amount for the period of 431 days.
x lfi. The amount in deposit be permitted to be
iwithdrawn by the appellant.
ESEQE