High Court Karnataka High Court

Munithayamma vs The Divisional Manager on 28 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Munithayamma vs The Divisional Manager on 28 August, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
II THE Elfifi $093? 0? Xflfifllfilll, EIIGILOEE

sum 'rue ms 23"' my or mmusw 2§e § '»T._

EEEGSE

Tm norms am. awrxca  , 3

1:.r.n.w. as-12(:oo%s 6§_1_rj;._   "

§
BEIWEI'

1 HUNITHAYAMMA
{BEAD*9ELETEBj

2 SABQJAPIHA wit?'  {.3
   ..

5533 3”’53*9U-T 3? 3E.”.’.’*”5.’A”‘~5″_’V~_ ‘ ”

3 c re5;:;1».;”;:€::V2«’zé:.-=.§.*.;;-; “535-«:;” mTE5 cH.§m3RA§pA @

,2-us-£.r:;A 2:; “fl?;.P=.B’.:-‘.Z~,–….

_
AGES ABOU’Ztf~._J,9. ‘:.’E§P;R;’3_g

NITBU E5”: 9

. ‘ALLV»»;>L::.a,’:*’ Kamémfimfi,

“v:1.mmf= ‘%Bm I am Jam: I-I) ,

I}E3?i’~’a,1\.B.%§2’£x”;E:£_ ‘:;’r_) ,

BAM’.t’1:v33;L~§2£?;’s.?..V Hrgam TALUK.

* .. A.z=1=>£::.LAN’::s

_ _ °=.__(;By3 3:1 12′ szezzsasrmzc, zmvosawma}

THE DI’i?ISIC3I~B3sl; nzawma
sum RQAI3 ‘i*R£aNSP€:§1T,..

ceaponarzozsr, K..’£*i§.RC3£%I},
* sfimmmsm

M W-~ —- «M ww-wrwwwamwww Maww wwwmfi WW mfififiwflfiflfifim %&*”5§’éz;:¢-%”‘§ Mggfi €

BANGALQRE – 550 €}2’?;

REFREEENTEE BY ITS KANRGER.

..

{BY Sri K NAGRBAJ; ADVQCATE}

213?: 211322;’: We 173:1: or mt zs.g:%:’~.é%;j<'3».2?;I§.§f5<:*
Jsmszmm AND AWARD 13ATEn:;"3;3—-..2.':oo_8 'jmssau I-N

MVC NO. 3475,/2005 DR' was };'~fIL£2._Q7i¥'
JUDGE, comm: GE' mam CASSES; mmmz.a=y.,, ":gm_r:"r,_

KETROPGLITIAN AREA, ,'BE:1'¥GAL<_'.§_RE, T,{e:«;,':z:::;.:z«::_;'::.2';
mans: ALLOWING '3?ETiI'i*xo1s: EOE.'

CQMPENSATION AND sssizzxcs -my
CQMEENSATIGN.

THIS MFA cozuitzée. :’.s_:~:f{–.’Eo§; .’;’_;;§:A§,3:NG THIS nay
TI-E COKIRT MADE V_mL:»Qw:NG.,v : .,

VfI?his””V..i_;销:::l,a.:Lafl@t$*..__gVp§5eal far enhancement

of c:r2;:z1§$z2V’$_’at’i’9:3.V’ ‘

2. hé:”n%’*”«’i ‘%?a %ai=d”‘ .learned cttmnaal far

15’ ‘a;*:”t.:’«§5–. 5

2 ta 4 are the wifa and

‘7T__c.’:E1;i,}.dze.’f§.:3.é::ea.$3e:i-Cha.z1dra;_3pa who éied in a
.1 *:=ifneh3;’a1§ accident that teak place an
At ‘aha time of accsidentz, decsxeaseezi

w”a5 “‘éLgaei 39 years. Aacarading ta tha judgmant

rw c:HQ3£e’\–x.–.«£/X *—Mfg»/x.-, .

Mtt wccawmwwdoemkt ‘mxfst \§’Vsfl'”1i.$’$zh’\¥.£'”‘%{7’.l,”\13,!’\.'(x\,x¥”‘$ rm¢as\,,,(m;: team»:

at the Sayreme Caurt in ths case of Saxala

Verma & Othera Vs. Delhi Txansyort Cor§§:§t;on

and another rapartad in 2669 _3€Jfgié§§;

multipliar appropriate t0 the ag%~§f.&ééeaa§dg =

wauld he ‘l5’. There _is. us, qéntragemgg

batween the parties zeggzdifig’éeter&;fi§§i$n ¢f

innama cf éeceasad. T$é#§fgré;*§;$ifi§nta are
entitled ta c¢§§h;s%t§§fi¢J§£_»Rs;4;80,000f~
under the Ahead ,l§$a:fi§% &d§§§fiaency. The
trihunal_{ fi§$; ifiwfié$6$i Ks;%5;§BG/w under
C0fiVERt£QB%$A%é%§%1 i dfigfiét find any xeason
ta i$te£fé§a,§i£h_fifi§.5a%§. The elaimanta are

entitled m _:’a+::a.1.vx.%;c%:a§é’n§a&ien Rm . 5, 25, ace;—-.

>n_ 4, §A§§¢;difi§ly, «appeal 13 accepted in

pémt[ V- §d@éfi3atian at R5.4,93,G061- is

*,wawardefi} vh§ ; %:ibunal is $nhanca& to

_F.33;5,2§;Qfi§{%. The anhancad aamansatien

{f$h&iiVé&;ry interest at 6% §.a. fram the data

A }¢£;’y@tition till tbs data at realisation.

“»_E&ymént, agpartimnment and investmsnt ahall be

gm . -/”~&«?\’W<£ "M

w -mvwwwnmw Iowa:

mmmmwmwmmmwwmwwmawfflfifiwfiwwwkWfififififlfifigfififlfiflfifififififi%fl@R€

in the ratio evalvad by Tribunal in the
impugned award. Patties are directed pé baa:

their costs.

1313:

wwmmmm .