High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Icici Lombard General vs Smt Tharani on 24 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Icici Lombard General vs Smt Tharani on 24 November, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
..rt~5 

,1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THFS THE 2473 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUS'l'ICE SUBHASH 3.59} : :' ~ 3

M] s. ICICI Lombard General
insurance Company Limited,
SVR Complex,

Hosur Main Road,

Madivala,

Bangalgre.

Represented by its

Manager (Legal)

(By Sri.   "  

AND:

1. Sim.  .  % 
W/0, Late  
Agazfiabéut 45 yca1§.____A _

  j
  

  3.  

Aged abcuiv  years.

' %    Vasuldy'

 Agetiabout 17 years.

  :5. Lokcsh Kumax',
  about 12 years.

Respondents 2 as 5 are chilclmn of

Balu Kumar and respondents 4 as 5
Since mixzors they are rcpntsemzcd

B * their natuml guaniian methcr
R.,spom;le:nt No.1.

” APPELLANT

“tbs; cf awarded by the Txibuxaal.

V stated ‘§;44¥ia.t,””v..I*;.1is1;;>a11<i of claimant No.1 died in a road accident and
'as a painter. The Tribunal taking the income of the
at Rs.-1,(){)0/– per month and consficring his age,
VT the loss of dependency at Rs.4.32.0(}OI– and in all.

‘ Rs.5,00,()0O/ — by way of compensation.

All are R[at.No.35,
2″ Cross, Baba Saya Palya,
HAL 2″‘ Stage,

Ineiiranagar,
Ba11ga1oz1:- 38 .

6. Surezsh Kumar.

S/0. Munhathnam,
324, 6’5 Main Road,
HMT, Layout,

This Misc. First Appeal filcd un-;ie1* vSc€:ti5<n;1….1V73.{ 1) (if V *
Evl.V.Act
against the judgment and”-aiisaxd dt:
in MVC N0.-5G73[2007 on the file ofV- _Addition’a1 Judge; Member,
MACT, Court of Small Caxasgs, $CCH~2′(“}, ‘awarding a
compensation of Rs.5,0D,O(}Qi- With; iniji-:1f6st”@ 6%» pa. from the
date ofpetition tillpayment. ” _ ” –.

This Appeal taming inn for: Adm:Z%.$ion”:this day, the Court
delivered the fo1ls031ViI1i§:.V- I . 1 ‘ _

This is ‘tfie Insurance Company questioning

H ” the wife and ch11dn=:I1’ ofthc deceased. it is

3. Lczarned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company

submitted that, them is no evidence as mgaxd to theuof

the deceased at Rs.4,{){)0/- per month and ‘_

axpenscs of the deceased, minimum 1_}»3″.*._i$

not 1/4&1. The Tribunal erroneously Iias i’ 1§:

deceased at }9.’s.4.{}00/~ and has’j§9v;*<pzngl)–fA'c!.eV.§ciL1¢tf;§iv'

of 1/3"'.

4. No doubt, the de<jl1:1-31,:".i£;f:1 towards
personal 14*'? 2 have been at least
1/3", but No.1, it shows
that the a1¥€"1vV€1 c:c1dent has taken place on
1.6.2637. vxit :is«.nét– as regard to the cost of
living in would have earned much

'mgr: 1,50/V-A' Even taking the income at R3150/–
'eo._111c to Rs.4.50{}j- per month and after giving

V ("if would come: to Rs.3,000/- and the Tribunal
4;app}icd the deduction, but quantum determined
.4 reasonable. In View of the same. E do not find any

interfere with the judgment and award of the Txibunal.

.\_,x’

Accordingly. the appeal fails and same is dismissed. The

amount in deposit be transferred to the ‘I’ribun.aL

KNMI –