IN THE HEGH COURT 0%' KARNATAKA, CERCEEYF BEENCH
AT DHARWAI) k
DATEI3 THIS THE 2 1st my OF J1.I.L'.f;:20f§8; T4 A
PRESEM
mg HONBLE MR. JUs'r1§:E S3.' A
THE HCNBLE MR. "3}§§§z'UGOP:fiA GOWDA
Misceflanecjggfiiggggfihfigfi; tgf 2007 {MVC)
Between: __ -
1. shat; Nazjda.
/' (:3 <f}o1x;f1:'1ppa 1'L3;::isa_._1'.:&<:1<:1i
Agfi: :26 3;tea'rs;,
Occ: L fioustrhdigi work,
_ 2. ..«} KI:23nar
so 'A V . "A
S.._;'o Cxoudappa 'Devaraédi
':
__ D; 0 Gaéudappa Devaraddi,
figs; 5 years,
» Nfixndev Goudappa Devaradéi,
Age: 60 years,
Occ: businass,
Smi. Sumitra,
W] 0 Namdav Devaraddi
Age: :35 ywrs,
Qczc: Househoid work,
A3} are R/9 Yaragatti,
Ta}: Saundatti,
Dist: Belgaum.
. .
(By Srifiakash Yeli, Adv.) V
And:
1. Gudusab Saidusab Hundekaifi ' :1' A
Since dead by his LRS. _
(3) Mehboob Gudusab HundéE:_3'r
Age: major, '
O<::<:: Businsss, R,v"'€_);_ "Yadwad; ~
Ta}: Gokak, " " 1
Dist: Belgaum. V
2. Thti Urliifid """t".,
Branch
Ttirougfi « Diva]; Marsager,
Mafzlu' Gang V --.
Beigaum.
. . . Respondents
Shéugfiaifiappa S. Lolawad for
Sesytiharaxna Rae, Adv. Fopr R 2
~_ Gudussjb. Hundekar, R I served.)
is filer} under Section 173(1) of the Motor
~ -« I <.__°\f-Eahirzles" Aét, 3988 against the judgment and award dated
pfissed by the Ist Aédl. Civil Judge {Sr.Dr1.),
TA{1::11.,_ it-IAC'I', Belgaum, partly allowing the claim pefition
-..:'f0r' compensafion mild seeking enhancement of
* Vcgtripezzsation.
This Appeai coming on for haaring, this day,
BANNURMAT}-I.J., delivared the following:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is posted for gdmissio~i1-
insalrance Company and the a1p}:§§¢i12>§1*;gj:’f;% :, A’
I’€}3I’€S€I}§€’d, we have heard the “£3:.§i1:1se1’V (§a1j
sides.
2. The chimants have of the
compensation iii though the
deceased wag a hate} and
Bar and {£130 ~. ‘dperations, the Motor
Accident ” (for short ‘%:he
in holding his income at
RS}’.ZOQ;/”- is contenéed that even though the
licence has been produces} the
“W43 error in 3:10′: awarding the adequate
‘._’_’CQn§;jan$ati0n under the head ‘£055 of income’ as claimed.
‘ ‘.fji§.__’iS” submittefl that the compensafim} awarded under
t.1_:g§=heatis ‘funerai expense’, ‘cansortium’ ‘I033 of Iowa and
véifection’ are also too meagm and the ‘1’rib11:{1a} has not at
4
313 awarded any compensation towards loss cf lave and
aff€’>{2tiOI} $0 far as appeilant 1103.4 and 5 are
3. After hearirsg the learrxed Counsel on bath ”
on perusal of the award 53: is seen that acceptix1_g’-the.A_T(:l$ir:i _ ‘
that the claimant was a supervisor
in ‘£116 Bar ans} Restauran1:_: as as
operations absolutely no n1ate1’ié§L’ ta; the
income. in fact, the of the
father ‘”a7s- iifgd the absence of any
material régafding. the ‘I’ribunal was justified
in hoiding th’a:;t-» income wouid be RS200/«~.
{Hence V-ffie g70x11+per;sai:ic1T1’Vunder inéividual head, W6 do :10:
part of the Tribune}. Sc: far as 1033 of
‘”~’*v1%ove and for the minor chiiciren is concerned, in
Avie&s$,..,__«:the Txibunai was justified in awarding
€:r§;fi§.«.;3’-<'3:t.1'j';~,§8.'si<3s:*: of Rs.5,00()/– each. In the absence of any
:a:8..t€:;ia1s as to the funeral 6Xp€Z}S6, tramsportatien of dead
'bédy €:3:c., the Tribunal was justified in awarciing
V. compensatian ef Rs.5,000/~ under {he said head.
S
Howevar we f.:1d that the Tribunal has not at. all
CO§}Sid€1'€d the loss of love and affection far the
who are appellants 4 and 5. As such it is just ~
to award compensation of Rs.:";S,0{){}/__-..ea_c:h " "
and 5.
4. In the result, the appeal sta1″3.uCI’$.a’13Qwe»’:i'” in..pa1it. The
compensation awardcci enhanced
to 123.8, 13,999/—, _the;j::’A@sQ§:11fi1e§*1?:.._§ris’L£i49;1ce company
has not c1~:a11c::i;g-;?d directed to pay the
enhanced fsvéeks from toéay. It; shall
also carry intérest £3.vt’V–.3Ll;1%;”§b’IV”‘:+’;”;£.¥iff3 of 6% per axmum from the
,f’da1:¢ of%.;5et;+;i;;io;a.At:11reaiisatzon. With this Itaodificatzion, the
‘-§i:i®’§:;sed of.
3d!-
Judge
Sd/’L
Judge
Vb?”-