High Court Karnataka High Court

Muttappa S/O Yamanappa … vs Smt.Yamanawwa W/O Muttappa … on 23 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Muttappa S/O Yamanappa … vs Smt.Yamanawwa W/O Muttappa … on 23 February, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT' BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED: THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY: 

BEFORE

THE 1HON'BLE3 MRJUSTICE     

M.F.A. NO. 31732 QF 2009   « .  '
BETWEEN     "

1.

Muttappa,
S / 0. Yarnanappa Hirekurabar,
Aged 57′ years, 0c’C~:.V_AgriACii1’t1_ireQ’
R/0. Balabatti, Tq’;’-.E\«’1uddeE:j)ihéI’1

2. KumariMah–adeVi;””*-if _ «V
D / 0. MutiappI.a Hi=reku–.15ab’af;’ ..
Aged 19 ye;aif$,*–‘.O’cc: _ S*.:_L1d¢rL1f;,. ,
R/0. }3a1:;b3.tti_f–‘TqL’=M1id-dcbihal.

3. Mzahaniesh, < .4 _
S /o. I=¢Iuttapjt:a% 'Hitesmrabar,
Aged 18 years;flOCC:.__Sttident.

R/0. Ba1_1Vabatti, Tq.w.Muddebiha1. : Appellants

= S}1df1i1*’Si_:1g11 R. Vijapur, Advocate]

‘fariianawwa,
“‘—Wife. Muttappa Hirekurabar,
Aged 47 years, Occ: Household work

AA :OWhe1′ of T1’acf.01’ No.KA.28/117847,
_ ” “R/o. Balabatti, Tq. Muddebihal.

T33?”

[‘\J

2. The New India Insurance
Company Limited,
Han_a.masheti:y Building.

Gurukula Road, Bijapur. :

(By Sri. Shivanand Patil, Advocate for A

THIS MFA FiLF:O U/s:i”4i17s(‘*ii)

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AV\_7ARF)v ‘DATED’,
26.11.2008 PASSED IN NO..1__19/V2007: “O’NVTHE”

FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGEW{SENIO¥<– DIVISION) AND
MACT, MUDDEBIHAL, AWAF:"__{[)I1"€.G COMPENSATION
OF Rs.2,54.000/- Wm}: _iNTE';R.ES'_i',.iAT_6°/:9 PER ANNUM
FROM THE DATE OF .PE'l'ITION._TT.LL*THE DATE OF
REALIZATION A EN}£ANCEMENT OF
cOzv1FENsAjriO_Nj.–

This MFA’ for -Orders, this day, the
Court’ dtepiiVe.red fO’11OWi.i1g;_v V V

ThVO1_1_gh is listed for Orders today, with

cO*ri’seiit Of the”–1ea_1_fned counsel On both sides, the same

‘ heard Orrmerits and disposed Of by this Judgment.

.FO’1″”Athe ‘p’iur’pOse Of convenience, the parties would be

referred to, as they are referred in the Claim petition.

2. This appeal filed by the claimants who are

A ‘”‘brOthers and sister Of deceased Somaiingappa, seeking

rnultiplicr 13, it awarded a sum of Rs.2,34,.OOO/–

towards ‘loss of dependency, Rs.15,0OO/M towardfs«<.t»_'lloVss

of love and affection' Rs.5,000/~ towanslsl

expenses and transportation of deadiébotllytd/;'.lV

'Titus in a'l.l, it

it awarded Rs.2,54,000/ – with

per annum from the date'-v..of..epetition' till, date of"

realization. Con-iending"' _ _ the A "combens ation
awarded by the Tribunal' reasonable, the
claimants :;lve31m-::11t. of l.r;u*’:.or E’)ca1’i11g’ E\Io.KA~28/Tm

7847. l’2-1.’-‘.31 emd 1″1({;;li;;(?1″1t (i1’ix”i1’1_g ()1″i.i’S (‘1I’i\-‘t”‘.If”I7€5″.$3.1i’}’i.iIE§7{

in de:e.1t:h of S(‘)mz;11i1’1g21ppa who xx-’21:; agcd_;2’i–I3 §’:.nt1’~.b

its coverage of insur2;mc.c: with ._Ih41’1e j’2m’5 ” ‘=11:s}5′()h*:1e’11t:.u’

‘I’heroi’ore, the only point, 1111511 2-‘1’i«’is:sé._f(}i” 1115! _c’.€c.).1):eici'<.{I*a1i 1:11;

in this appeal is:

i) ‘Whethef .~1,1..1k», c’:1?§hi;:1″y«a:T?€?f1-15L~41%}>olfi1’al.i=1.Eas:§1’m1(ic out
a Case LC§'(;_z__1’1pe1″1sat’.ion?.”

8. far as ihe
quantum€~ of admittedly, the
aC(§id,f;”E1t~'(3CCL{1’I’€d in the year 2006.
Mc*1*e¢f}7o no cl()r?u1hent2,1r_v’ proof in
s1,1I9P<)1*iunUf.13*}; i'V3–."1QVc§'a",_1i1'c;-'Qof the deceaseci, in View of the

()c§L;4.i<1e1,3o'..o§tvi_der1oé'or…PW. 1, the brother of deceased To {hf}

V=cfit<:I['V-.fl3.£iE:AV[Vthe dew;-1Se.(I was ear11i1'1;{ n'1o1'e I:1i1a11

Rs;'4,500'/"%_ "per month by ci()i11g £1gI"i(_'.E.11t.1,11'(i'. a.1'1c'1 CCJOHL'

wo1'k,_it.. is j1.1st. and 1'1e(.:css:ary to take "the in(':ornc: of the

v:'1_o(fj'§:2-zsc(i at Rs.3,E500/~ per momzh (Rs. 120/ «~ per day}.

$1"

VR

iii)

9

The Judgment and award of the Trib1_m.a1 in

so £7211′ as it relates to apportiormfieém. of

C0mpe1’1sat:i0n and deposit, _fi’}.E: A:S8§fnej”‘v——is%–.b

remained un–aItered,»~»» ..