High Court Karnataka High Court

Ritesh vs Mohammad Haji on 16 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Ritesh vs Mohammad Haji on 16 December, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALLORE

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER--,.'4426__}A:'C!' " 
BEFORE   O
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE   

M.F.A. NO.105,E’>2_/2%U(O);8

1 RITESH
AGED7YEARS
MINOR 1s¢RE1?REsENT1:f.D_’DY» ‘HIS’
GUARDIAN {ms MOTH ER APPEIJLADJT No.2

2 SMT »
AGED 29% Y’E3A,RS
W/O LA’Ij’£Q GC!PAI,A«GOWDA

3 SPJSA O
AGED__69YE:AR3 ~
Vs/o MDr\_rrA,,VGov2rDA

– _ 4 “””” ~ ”

AGF,D_59_YEARS
” ‘W/,0 ASEDA -“GOWDA

. ‘ALL AREARESIDING AT BADANAJE HOUSE.
MALAVANTHIGE VILLAGE.

BELTHANGADY TALUK
gA _ APPELLANT5
¢ QIBYV SR1: P KARUNAKAR, ADV.)

1 MOHAMMAD HAJI
S/O KHAJHA HUSSAIN SAUKAR.
MASARAGALLA.

DEVADURGA TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT

2 THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INsURA.NI’_:E’_””

BRANCH OFFICE RAICHUR
REP BY TIS BRANCH MANAGER

(BY SR1: KSURYANARAYANA RAO..’ADV; «FOR R2. AND’
R} SERVED} * ” ‘

‘RE3SF’ONDEN’f$ ” A

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) «OF ‘ACT AGAINET
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.zI.20.os, PASSED IN ‘

MVC NO. 1535/2003 ON THE FTLE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
[SRDN] AND ADDL. CJM, MEIVIBER. MACT, PUTTUR, D.K.,
PARTLY ALLOWING iFI~IE–; ,c:I,A_IM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND ‘ ‘ SEEIQNG _’G-EIIOHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION, I”

THIS APPEAL c:’O1\/1I’NG _O.N’–v_F’OR« FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE GO-uR’I*F.DEILIVERED THE’ FOLLOWING»

M E N T
Thi;~fi_’appe’ai Claimant for enhancement

Of Ceigrtrtipensz-1tic}I:I: I1wg3:.rded by the “ribunal.

_ 2. the sake of convenience. the parties are

..a’E”t.fIey are referred to in the claim petition

‘ . V ‘OefOI_’e ‘i”riburIa1.

A ” 3′: The brieffacts Of the case:

On 8.6.2003, when the deceased Gopala Gpwda

was walking on the left side of the Belgaum Bagaiktiige

road near Karadigudde, Belgaum Taluk, V’

iorry bearing registration ‘erg

rash and negligent manner

As a result, he sustainedrgrievotts*-injuries and

succumbed to injiiriges é’VG0i}ernment
Hospital, Belganm. child and
parents MACT, Puttur,
D.K. ‘as.s,47,o0o/~. The
‘i’ribun_ai,_ Z a compensation of
Rs.3,83h,8¢:iu5,/ve at 6% p.a.

As is no dispute regarding death of

V i§he_de,ceased.in a road traffic accident, negligence and

H insurer of the offending Vehicle, the

Onlir that arises for my consideration in the

A is:

Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.17,Q{l_O/~

towards ‘traiisportatiori of dead body
expenses’ and it is awarded as against

awarded by the Tribunal

heads’.

8. Thus, the elaimarits. are the

following compeiisatiolitlé’ t’
it , V’ l3{s.6,75,000
‘ Rs. 10,000

— Rs.25.000

— Rs. 10,000

a) Loss of d€§_J¢I1d€I:1Cy:

b) Loss ofVe,one’oi?t11i’r111:._ _ V V
0] Loss or love,’ai’id,af£’eeti0fi.
d} Loss of.eState ‘ *

e) Ti*anS’poi%tatiXr}h of body

‘;_fu171e1’al”eXpAer’I,TSes .. ‘ W Rs.17,000

0 Rs.7,37,000

ACeoi*di1;_1_g1y, the appeal is allowed in part.

-.a1:1d award passed by the Tribunal is

r1i’od’i’f;ieci.l.’tG__lttlae extent stated herein above. The

l’..elaimante are entitled for a total Compensation of

“:tfRsl’f;’37,000/~ as against. Rs.3,83,850/~ awarded by

Triburlal with i.I1′(C}’€ST; at 6% p.a. on the enhanced

~”>ZTI”.- ”-‘.?”’I” :2. -‘-‘> »’ M

years renewable once in 3 years and with an optiori to

withdraw interest periodically. Remaining
with proportionate interest is ordered to be
favour of the second, third

immediately after the deposit.

12. No order asgto ‘

;ti«t3UDGE

DM