-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARICATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY OF DECEMBER, 2908 V«
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MELJUSTICE suamsu B.Ai)}i' '
BETWEEN ..
1 Sm SAROJAMMA
W/0 LA'I'E.E)ODDAMAF:IGE>WDA'
@ CHIKKAIAH *
AGED AEBOUT 48 YEARS,
2 RAJANNA s/o LATE DODD.KsMARiGQWDA_"' ' %
@CHIKKAIAH
AGED AOBUT so AY'EARS,g-- _ '
3 SURESHA % " '''' "
s/0 I.,A'}'E.Df3a{)E?AM_...E?ICi£L§'ii{{)A_
@cH1;q<mH
AGED ABOU'P.28*?EARS,_,_"' _ * "
4 PUTTASWAMY'SfO_.1.ATEDO{}DAMARIGOWDA
@ CHXKKAIAH ,A.Gl:si YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT M§:uAsgGE13EBonDz,
KENCHANAHALLY POST. = .
RDURGE HO«.E3LI',TUikeIKtE_R BIS'I'R¥C'I'.
:' ~ _ , APPELL.AN'I'S
(aiszaz; R~\fR;xME*sH_ KUMARM» LAW MEN'S co. AEVS.)
" ;_ mp: 'MANAGV:-a';'se
M] S"0RiEj';NTAL INSURANCE co um
' V V CBO.'7,PEE._NYA,NO.20,10O FEET ROAD,
;:ALAHAL.t,;' CROSSSHOKKASANDRA,
" 'A " ' vLg3ANca§.L0RE-57.
AVSURESH ago 3/0 ASHWATH RAG
~ NO%.541,MU'I'H'I}RAYA NAGAR,
_' MYSORE ROAILBANGALORE-98.
RESFGNDENTS
(B? SR1: M sowm RAJU, ADV. FQR R1)
THIS MFA 18 FEED UIS 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMEIWI' AND AWARD DATED: 19.6.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO.
2999/2006 ON THE?) FILE OF THE IV ADDL. JUDGE, COUR'I_'.~._OF
SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, METROPOLITIAN AREA,
BANGALORE, (SCCH.N'O.6}, PARTLY ALLOWENG THE ..'C£.¥'~.--IM
PE'I'ITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING GN FOR
COURT DELIVEREE) THE FOLLOWING:
Jflefl
Memo is filed for dispensaflen'~.ef ndfiee et9T'}v.;esg§ende5at
No.2. as he is the owner and aeeeptegi the
Insurance Company. Meme '4 respondent
No.2 is dispensed
With consenfi tn: J ‘ is taken up
fer final dispfisali ” —
2. for enhancement of
eonlllfénsafion. No.1 died in a road
accident on seated that. dceeasetl was aged
iandywas monthly income of Rs.4,000/ -.
of any evidence in regard to the actual
e»-income ef it has taken the income of the (ind at
giving deduction of H3″ towards personal
V 5 calculated the loss of dependency at
__ and has also granted compcnsafion towards
‘V»._nzeeieél”expenses at Rs.25,207] -, however, towards loss of love
SEEKING ENHANc£;.:.ut1:;;~r’;”_’ Cir}? ‘
omega ‘z’}I;e…f:.5Y;~:::TaE ”
and afiéction, consortium, funeral expenses, transponaticn is
concerned, only Rs.%,O00/ – is granted.
3. Claimants are the wife and children and it is A’
of loss of love and aflbction, b
compensation should have been _
the claimants are entitled for another Rs;i2Q,:{){).0/« fivfl Atjhc” ”
«of £033 of love and afi’ec-tion and
} gver and above
A
4. with this enhancc3:it;:fi€’*Qf
the compensation 6% interest
fiom the date of is partly
sal-
‘judge