1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 97" DAY OF MARCH,,_Z015U;_~"--.'.,j: 5
PRESENT
THE HON'8LE MR. JUSTICE jk.'sREE~oH;p.RT:A(;T.1;
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC--E:: ;'«.,_1\f.Vi§'NLJGQFT;£\i.}§;'G'O~'u'siDA A "
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP.l5:EAL'VNO.63§4/20,654 (MV)
BETWEEN: ' E V M
Nationai Insur_ahr.",e CoffipaTj',* '
No.16, Kumarak--:ju'g.3_a Fioad',*5f= : * ,
Near Shiva-na_n"dVa Ci*%:r;l.e, --»E3aVn_ga3o~.r.eg-»i
Having iats Reg'i'oTn.ai Oifficeaifi No.i44,
subharam COmVpi'e>'<}-~[§'1;G."RoEi£i,' T
Bangaioref I F{e'p..,by,i'cs'A..A;O".
A _ ' . " . :APPELLANT
(By Sri ~ H5.Lirig.araj,f-Ad'v.)"'
.....
,.,VC..He:*a3a~EatIj”a,.._
W153′
£3/o’.iate.Go,V.i,ridarajuiu,
” Aged 487?yeaI=rs, No.16,
B«i..ockv_?~A’_M=adura Coiony,
Huizxii 23.
. R;Subramani, major,
.. “S,/o. Rangaiah, No.210,
Chikkathimmaiahappa Compound,
15: main road, Subramanyanagar,
Bangaiore -~ 21.
:RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. K.Sarojini Muthanna, Adv. for R1;
Sri. H.T.Natara3′, Adv. for R2)
6%,
2
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the Judgment and Award dated 11.05.2004 passed
in MVC No.3S15/2002, on the file of the XVI Add!–..__Judge,
MACT, Bangalore City (SCCH–14), partiy allowed, awarding
compensation of Rs.6,59,704/- with interest ‘at”-6?/p”vvp.a.
and directing the appeilant herein to depositthe’~sa–me,:_.V
This appeal coming on for
SREEDHAR RAO 3., delivered the”fo’i–lowing:_,. _ _ . .
JUDGME#”i}j;§_-~~r .. .1
One G.VijaVakrishna_n””~r..gdied.V’ in V _a: T-.:r3’uié):li’O’r”‘ “jvehicie
accident. The occurrence of–t–h.e’–ac’cigdent,”‘negligence of the
driyvelrllofi ve_hi.cle and insurance coverage of
the ‘oFufe’ndingVV’.’u_ehlicl~e::”is” not in dispute. Sister of the
deceased’fiiiedefpeti-tio’n seeking compensation. Tribunal
‘ A ‘has ?awa’rded cornpiensation. Insurer is in appeal seeking
.g.reduy:CV’ti_or’i VVcrfvc.ompensation.
The deceased was working in CPWD drawing a
” ‘is.-salary of Rs.8,900/- p.m. 50% to be defrayed towards
personal expenses. Remaining 50% is considered as
savings which would enure to the benefit of the
dependants. The total loss of dependency would be
%/
Rs.-4,450 x 12 x 13 m Rs.6,94,200/~. ‘Re–spofidTént /
claimant is held entitled to Rs.25,000/- t.jc§:tMari<§s:.e:"'IC.é.S'1éc5f_
expectation and Rs.:£0,000/~ tov¢azrd.s'fuéfie're'l ;
all, appeliant is heid entit|ed;'toefofel
Rs.7,2_9,200/-. However, tszgfisbufia!._%hasV%awa}{d'ede 5 lesser
compensation of R$..6,59,:704V]"—-.. "'-»..Hen'ce','vvthe/iappeal for
reduction is dismEsse c.'%fi.e'-
Amourufgin depVé>VSit::V;tae_:’ to the MACT for
payments ‘ ‘
s’a.c* ‘