.1fl("b)V V'Cf:ie?€nafn~r{ja, Erappa,
Beedu-4.__!3ad_i' I-muse,
' NVH~-~1?, f<aup-574 106.
{..E:}\,/AAVSTri;.aABi;:V§in Hegde & K.Manjunath, Advs.)
.ANb;
T Jyothi, D/o. Hanumantha Katwa, A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT .
DATED THIS THE 3" DAEQE MAR'cH;'Ij2;ai'a .4"
PRESEN?aa { . .
THE HON'BLE MR. J:.Js:f;CE
THE HON'£3LE MR.' g§..7N'E.~xx'E?%r§jUGOPALA GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS vF.£P_,.S.3T. ARARAEAL"Er.;1Qi:'éa2é0/2005 (MV)
BETWEEN: '
Vasanth (f3ea«di):"j; ' « ~-
Rep. by nis next'frie,nt«.%
Father Era_ppa_. ' ' "
1(a) Erappa: O.» Ma-!.iaAp.osa«,...'-~'L'
aged about years.
' "agevd ab'_'ouxt' 46 years.
AH a,rfle'=R/ov '(:'}'}'v'C?:- VGV.VM.Basavaraj,
ZAPPELLANTS
125, Khacte Bazer, Shapur,
Belgaum District.
2. Mukundappa Poojar,
S/o.late Parvathappa,
Parvathi Halli,
Near Hanuman Gudi, I
Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District.
3. The Oriental insurance Co. -l__,td., "
Br. Off:APMC Yard, Gadag,~._
Rep. its Divisional Manager,
D.O.Udupi. -A
--_ . __ i , :REESPONDENTS
(By Sri. M.Y.Karigonnavar,_'Adv..7for " -.
Sri. M.U.Poonacha, Adv....for.R'3._', ' 1 "
R1 is served), I -.
This ::'app_eai"-'is1.__filed:-«-.nrid_e'r_ Section 173 (1) of MV Act
against the.3iJd.gi%nent'a.ndI_awa'rdd dated 18.06.2005 passed
in MVC"No--.1992/12000"-on. the"'f':~le" of the Addi. Civil Judge
(SR.DN) and'A.dd,l_,.MACT',-.,__Udu'pi, partiy allowing the claim
petition for 'co_rri~p"e.nsati'o_n"and seeking enhancement of
compensa_tion. ' '
fiihis 'appeal coming on for hearing this day,
sP_.'i§EDfiVARp_ RAO°J..,.__d.e'iivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Q.r’ue,vt’,fVasanth sustained fracture to right maxilla,
fractu’rve__A’:’ of mandible, supracondyiar fracture of right
He was under treatment in hospital for about 142
___days and 70 days after discharge, he could not recover
and succumbed to the injuries. The said injuries occurred
%/
in a motor vehicle accident. The occurrence of~~–acci_d’ejh:t;
negligence of the driver of the offending the
insurance coverage of the offen:ding”‘veh”lcle’
dispute. Vasanth had filed a Vcfailrn petl:t.l_;ort1″ seeiklihg’V”»..’
compensation. Upon his deatl-w..V:””the legal r’ep.res’ehtatives
have come on record, 1.1,-_ is not ‘ieljédviyspute that the death
has occurred due to the ilnjuries accident.
2. The’_d3–ece.asedwrvas«lilorginéglllasi’a”:Photographer. His
income.is”asser3sed*§t.;at Rs.3-,OCU/’¥r”Parents who have come
on record and pVroTse.cute’d..Vthe petition and are in appeal
seeking enh-ancementvlot…-*llcompensation. 50% is to be
um«_vdedV_u’eteEdlA” toward’s«.,._h.is* personal expenses. Rs.1,SOO/–
woLi’ld_ the benefit of the dependents. The
deceased’v§.?§:;_sV…1’aged about 35 years. In that view, it is
IVproper..to.._consider the mother’s age as 55 years and 11
“..jijmiulltipiier would apply. The total loss of dependency would
be. E§s.1,500/–(income) x 12(months) x 11 (multiplier) 2
“i:e.3.,98,ooo/-. The petitioners are entitled to Rs.2.5,000/~
towards loss of expectancy and Rs.10,00D/~ towards
fly
funerai expenses. The petitioners have produee.d’4*nfiedisca4!V.
biiis for Rs.74,000/–~ for treatment of theldve’eeésecf.’.’..’i_%”‘«–_
Rs.1,00,000/- is granted for :Tied’i'<:ai_ "–,an;d
expenses. In aii the petitVioners'.__a5i*eA. ent»it}ed'vt'p'V
compensation of Rs.3,33,OO0/~:.'L:."a.5 agei'nst'vvRs.=.4;"¢'i'.OdO/–. V
The compensation awarded by"tiie:"T}'i'%.».gnai 'ié"on"va higher
scale. Hence, the appeai ifs? en.h3a.nc§=::rifi~é_ifit"'is dismissed.
. 5 i _ sd/..
June
JUDGE