High Court Karnataka High Court

H K Hanumanthappa S/O Kenchappa vs V Ramana S/O V Narasappa on 17 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
H K Hanumanthappa S/O Kenchappa vs V Ramana S/O V Narasappa on 17 March, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy

.1.

THE HON’BLE MRJUSTIQE Mo§iEE%EEEEY f I

M.F.A. No. 1o3’o3;2p05

H K E

S/O I_{E’N’~.AF:PA’ :

Rlgf) EinEEEEmEE_BEE1)1a1_ A
HELEPE?§fE, FADGR A
E~Ei<x*s.DUER 'I'£&§..IJK_
CHIKPJIAGALUR Dlsrnacr

A)'{3lRIJAM.F)I;4§§iJ «K HANUMANTHAPPA
A'-3ED.,ABOUT "-ESLYEAEE
R/O SIDDEDEVARA BEEDHI

x HELEPETE, KADUR TOWN

V ~.KA1:)UR TALUK

'C.Hl KMAGRLUR Di""i"RiC'i"

.- : RfiTi:;!.NAMMA

*~ _ 13,10 PJJAMPTJRA RQAD _IRUR

_ W!'-QNAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

Si-'iii.P:'\

w/0 CHANNAKESHAVA
AGED ABOUT' 22:: YEARS
'I'.M.C. EMPLOYEE
TARIKERE

ROOPA
we UMESH ,, .

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
DODDAPETE. KADUR TOWN
KADUR TALUK

D “i”‘ri:’\iviivif\iAi-i
SI 0 HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEA???

SIOOEOEVARAOUOI’ 31:~:EOH1″~ .

KADUR TALUK
{B’ s-. s MAHESH & ‘NAOENORA, Am! 3
AND ~

____ -can

1 V I?hN1Afifi’$$j()~:y._ ‘
AGED*AE3pUT 40 YEARS
” DRJVER OFTEN ‘LORR”i’~~r3O KA 0510 5143

R1r;’N’€2 ‘3I’32.’«QH-ANNRKUFHAPALLI
V AP{AP€TH.~’aP!JR.¢ nmwrrw Ani-P

I IJ-.IIu| i_I\aH.r a.

_AGED.ABOU’l”50 YEARS
_ w/O Ar-RAJ1,
NILAYA 5]18[ 1 STH CROSS
‘i~MAI’N__ ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA

– ._ ‘~MY.!3’QR.E ROAD, BANGALORE 25

zc:

MANAGER
Z ORIENTAL INSURANCE OO L’I’D..
~BRl’\NCH OFFECE,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE

“O:

REE-‘5’]-“ONDEN”i”‘S

(By Sri : A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R3

SRl.M.U.POONACl-IA, ADV. FOR R3)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC 173 (1) OF MV ACT

AOA: gr TH A JUDGMENT AND AwAR:_) DATED: 28.7.2005

PASSED IN MVC.N0.76/04 ON ‘mu: FILE OF THE CIVIL
I A

C33

JUDGE (SR. DN.) 85 MACT, KADUR, PARTLY«~~–.§L!§(tWtNG

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION WITH

18%) 13.13..

C UFT’ MADE THE F”LLG”v»iiNG: A

The -and evbxfither of the

THIS MFA comma ON ma o§2n§e3ResTHjs%17;!$¥,

deceased, by the:

judg.m_ent: of the Civil Judge

(Sr.%} V {_1’\;i:’1.C’i’, ._ £61′ shert MATH’, ..9….–‘-

of compensation. A

in Vthe’.aeeident that ms-uri’e’d an 1.1.2….

-I:

….. motor vehicle in question, one

aged 22 years, succumbed to fatal

behind parents, the younger of whom

the mother aged 45 yeAa_rs, facts in dispute.

contested

3″ V. _ is seriousiylis the rec-k’r’*ig ef R336,’ = per day as

the wage of the deceased and the application of

multiplier ’12’ to determine loss of dependencyw In

I

U”\

-dd’ti-‘n, it is wntmd.-ad .h.9… I.-..*-1.-11……

CAD
I-

3:

5

C
§
5
:-

1-

C
5

“”~- =–H-=~—a Mr
that the deeeaeed was
man, although ~eonsdtudng
satisfactory Apmof qf deceased was
bodied yourdg
agea 4-” day Wale- m
to tion. In that View of

matter,” —§s;3,600/- as the income of . the

‘vdcducfing 50% towards personal

” « t.11¢:: loss of dependency is Rs. 18,000]-

deeddedd%jeep:3;§i:»dd~ m-er-d~1ie- 13, a”plicabl1’; m age 45 er tn;

“you’1:1’ge1:” of the parents i.e. mother, the ‘totxai ions er

* dcjjefidency is Rs.2,34,-000/- and is, accordingly

ewanded, as against Rs.1,15,200/- awarded by the

\

U I

95!:

4S
3
1
E
<

f Rs,10,000_l- each "to

estate and ioss oi' oonoor-titan is '1'h1_«e'

court has tune and again pointed ioot;

under conventional head;
Sp-ace, ..__e 011813! etc,
not a fiieifi J . a bachelor
entitling tljtfltlepcrgdéiittfi to-.-za. .5 .osa_= to
estate forij'*v1oeVe"of love and ofieo'-cioii.
The-~awoi§tt' 'of/'–:_ funeral expenees does
m;em1;nm¢mmQm.t

' 'V appeal is allowed in part. The

1' " , and award is modified entitling the

Rs.1,3S,3G0}– in edclifion to the amount

rl

awoivled by the MACT', Ifl'T'"'t "t 6% 19.9.. mm the

* s 4_ date of petition and in all other respects rernains

Ln. Sd/"'-

fudge