ADv:%§. 2
1 MFA N0.6635/2908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCHstAT DHARWAI)
2 3 -
DATED THIS TH DAY op' NOVEMBER, _
BEFORE
THE i~«IoN's1..E DR. JUSTICE K, H3VHAKTHAvAf:r$A~i.p; _ L "
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL nqegééissf
BET EN:
THE NEW I!'?¥DIA- Assummeg .00: .,§..'rI:.2.
mv1s1or_~;;;L CLL_IB_ROAD,_
BELGAUM; REr?+12Es:«:1\rrEaaI:3Y rrs
MANAGER-, :?.EGz.0NAL%o'Fm"€:1:,. .
No.28, U_NI'I'Y B1_1ILnjiNG»AN:s:E:{E,
MISSION 'seas, B5Nm..I.o:2E'ri6o 0274. ..APPELLAN'l"
(BY ms B.c$§'S:*«;f2:'rz-5AR1£:xa1&"'"RAo, A/S AND SR1 KRKUPPELUR,
1". SMT NA'£§Ai£iMBIKA,
/ O NGAMESH H-IREMATH,
AGED 54' YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,
R] C MEARADIMATH, GOKAK TALUK,
AA BELGAUM.
:2}"»3;~'?<'1z«;AD1«:s1»i samamasn HIREMATH,
} S/O IATE SANGAMESH HIREMATH,
TV AGED 36 YEARS, ADVOCATE
R/O MARADIMATH, GOKAK TALUK,
BELGAUM.
3. SR1 MAHESH SANGAMESH HIREMATH,
S/O LATE SANGAMESI-I HIREMATH
AGED 32 YEARS, MEDICAL PRACTITEONER,
R'/O AMMINBHAVI, DHARWAE TQ. AND IIXST.
4. Sm' JAYASHREE,
w/0 SHWASHARAYNAYYA KATKUR
2 MFA No.6635l2008
@ HIREMATH, AGED 2? YEARS,
R/O AMMINBHAVI
mimzwan TQ. AND DIST.
, 5. THE MAI'-IAG¥NG QIRECTOR,
VEJAYANANI} RGADLINES L'l'D.,
SHRENATH COMPLEX, II FLOOR
NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBLI 530 o29( OWNER OF
TRUCK cm/5292)
6. SMT PRABHAVATHI, _
w/0 SR1 GANGADHAR I{ALYA."2I.MATE~I.,_
AGE MAJOR, HOUSE_HQL.Df
R/O AMMINBHAVI " ~ - ;
'I'Q.AND £2131'. DHARWA-D. <
7. THE ORIENT'AL'iNSLERANCE {l'«4()'."L_'§'_£V:J.,
BY {TS DI\?ISICI!NAL_BvIéANAGER_; '
DiVISIC§NfiL44.OF5F'£CE,'-P;-l3.F?_O£%.D;". '
" ' ' .. RESPONDENTS
THIS IV¥ISCELLANE€)__US_FIRS'F APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SEC'¥'IO'f"u 1".7S(I},OF. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 1}4.'.2{}0E3.I{'ASSED IN MVC No.41/2006 ON THE
FILE. OF PRL; CIVIL JUDC':E(SR.DN} AND ADDL. MACT,
G(}§j§AR;.AWARDIl*€G A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,61,324/-- WKTH
INTEREST @ 6% ?§fs-.----*--FROM THE DATE OF' CLAIM PE'I'I'I'}ON TILL
" «I§E:fi.IJSA'5'IOI'~L_
'V V' ' ..'.VrFr-:1%f.s; é~a&T::3§3ELu;1~zEous FIRST APPEAL comma om FOR
'ADMISSION. ','=I'HIS BAY, THE comm EHELIVERED 'mg
FQLLOWE A
JUDGMENT
V’ * The appcHant-insurance company is before this Court
K gander section 113(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1933 praying
for Setting aside the judmcnt and award dated 01/04] 2008
made in MVC No.=4~1/2006 on the file ofthe Principal Civil
Judgegscmor Division)/Additional mar, Gokak.
4 MFA No.6635f2008
Further, the Tlibunal has awardcd Rs.40,O%/Ve ii¢:1»’§’ésrs31’ds
medical and incidental expenses, Rs.6,009§]H”‘ ”
funeral expenses and .V
Rs.5,.00O/– towaxds loss of
towards loss of cstatc_:_.1;md “fl_?1:'(.’:3 1
compensation of Rs.6,61,32?i}.;in. favoiirof
4. Merely bocansc t1dc..sons« ofothé deceased
was appointed on and wife of the
deceased a good ground to
mduce men» The case of the
app§31a:1t sons of the deceased is a medical
pracfitim;;e1′ ‘was a lawyer and they Wm not
défiaondcnt onV.tVh:e doceased is not a good pound to xoduoe
The quantum of compensation
._ the Tribunai does not depend upon the
‘ vmw<r(;£"afw-_«"%;.
of dcpcndanm but it is based on the c«m*nings of
‘ti
.. Vot}xe.&o”ceased..wMT’ and the age of the dcceascd or the cla1man’ ts
” ‘aétbe case may be. I see no iilegality or infirmity in the
impugned jusdmcnt and award.
5. In the zesulttheappealfaflsandtho
same is hereby dismissed. The statutoiy amount
L
Kmv
5 MFA No.663S!2€)()8
deposited by the appellant in this case be
to the ‘I’1%una1 for disbursement.