Smt Shanthi Bai vs Sri Kuber Naik on 22 January, 2010

INTYREHKH{COURTCH?KARNATAKA
(HR3flTBENCHATDHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2019:  .

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATI1:ANjV'LV.: V" 
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2 I753/;'2"GoT<gIMv;,'_' 

BETWEEN:

SNIT. SHANTHI BAI,

W/O LATE SWAMY NAIK,

AGE 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE_,___
R/O M.M.1-EALLI TIIANDA, .   
TQ. HOSPET, DIST. SELLAR-¥_. 

_P '   f.;»._APPELLANT
(BY SR1. HANUI\/1ANTHAREI)[}_Y" S.A_HUI_<AR, ADV.]--.._* __ 

AND: _, _. ,   
1. SRIKUB]§.RNAI1*sZ . I I
S / O LATE ISOW.A1VVI'jY NAII~:; .

AGE 38. YEARS OWNER CUM RIDER OF
BAJAJ F.LANT'IN.A MI')T.OR ,CYCLE.BEAR1NG
NO. KA--35/L-6349, RxO.M'.M..H*AL1..~I THANDA
TQ. HOSPET, DIST. 'BELLARY':--.._ '

2. THE MANAGER EAJAJXALLIANCE,
GENERAL~INSRUA'RCE COMPANY LTD,

I V"  . NO-...105A,-FIRST FLOORCEARS PLAZA,

, I36 RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE 25.

A  (ET SvRi;..I£/I«..§§§VSIjUV]I?:AGAR, ADV. FOR R2.)

...RESPONDENTS

T-PIIS-A'PPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF Mv ACT
AGAISNTTHE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5.12.2008 PASSED IN

  MVC NO,..1"3S5/07 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT VII, HOSPET, PARTLY
., ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING

 _ ENRANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

  . THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY,
I =  Ti-IE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties in respecptlsiofthe

appeal preferred by the claimant seeking enhan'<':einjle.rit§'

compensation.

2. Appellant counsel subirnitted’~’that, the

erred in restricting the liabilitj_o’E..the in~sura.nc’e up 2 T’

to rupees one lakh, which is erroneous andconsequently,
the compensation is also on. tlflfii losisk’eri’tside under other

heads.

3. _ learned. counsel for the insurance
company argued’-_th’at tih’e:ei’lvi’otor Accident Claims Tribunal

erred in cdeductipng’ / 15*’ but it ought to have deducted 50%,

“as the wasiiitihe only person left by the deceased and

is-.wh_0 hais’~…sourghit compensation as a widow. Therefore,

relyi__ng on Sarala Verma’s case submission made is that 50%

i”‘»deductio_n ought to have been taken. Secondly, amount

i.”i.Atowar’ds medical expenses could not have been awarded by

the Tribunal is the furfisubmission made.

.|,

4. Taking into account the above submission made,

the compensation is recalculated by deducting S00/O’Vr”..’fi”‘rh1lput AV”ir1VsV1VV11″anceV