High Court Karnataka High Court

Narasamma W/O Late Narasimha … vs M P Mallesh S/O Puttamallaiah on 18 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Narasamma W/O Late Narasimha … vs M P Mallesh S/O Puttamallaiah on 18 February, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda & N.Ananda
 %%f&m2,; %
"[1, "~.M.P.MaIlesh

I

{N THE HIGH scum' <3? KARNATAKA AT BANGAIfGl§"E- 
DATED THIS THE 1313 DAY 01:' FEBRUARY? " 
PRESENT %  "  
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE     

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUs?j*ic3E ai. Al§ANi)AVL '1,V»"V  3

M.F.A. :Ng.2513'I;2_£_)e5 

BETWEEN:   2  V.  

1.

Naxasamma
W/o. Late Na1~asim,ha,1\riuIth}: ‘ ”
Aged abq11t.34~_yea;rs. ‘
R I a; Beliavi Hob}i*’

2. Vi}€x§’311,’9’¥la ” *:,s

12)] o. Laicjflagragilzxhamuxthy
Aged’-ahaut’.17.’Lycafi:..TA ‘ ‘
DIE-, Late

3. _ -Chandrashekar
.. « 8/ its .. Narasimhamurthy
” “Aged about lfifycars
= .. E3031 ::iI’7e~.1ni11o:’s,_ rep. by Mather guardian]
!~a;:gpeIia;1i–.and msiding with her. …A;JpcI1a:1ts

‘?.i_’efi1shtaq Ahmed. Shivakumar, Abdul Khadar Ba
Sccfiappa, Advocates)

” -VS/0. Puttamaiiaiah
Aged abcaut: 35 years
R’ [‘ a: Melaktste
Tumkur Taiuk.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Tumlcur Shopping Complex, B.S.A.Road
Tumkur-2

Rep. by Manager. ‘

[By sn C.R.Ravishanka;r, Advocair: £¢:%”I22;.r3~1o¢s¢xx}¢§i)_ ‘L

T’h$s appeal is filed under Sectiono offtiotor Voi§Tié~icbVs’V ._

Act, against the judgment and award datéd 23.08.T300:T,passéjd in

MVC No.594/1997′, on the file c)£’P141:..C£viiJ11dge_V(Sf,Dh§)”&vAdd}. * L’

MACT, Tumkur, allowing the c:1ain1′”p§:’tif.ion fc>i~.oompéen3’ation and

seeking onhanoement of cq1npensa_ti01fi;__ ”

This appeal Corning for”adz2n’io3ioh~vo day, ANANDA. J.,.
delivered the following: o . ‘ V

This yiié for cnhanccmcnt of

compe113:ai:io1_i;*Vo_

Counsel for parties: and

we have beefi’ impuwad award.

. . ” . not disputed that the doceased was

av%Vfi:a£son and he was aged about 45 years at the

tixheéé-__of The Tribunal has assessed the income of

“the écéeaocd at Rs.1,5{30/~ per month.

The learned Oounscl for claimants would submit

Wthiat the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is

a’\) . {,;s*e,4v~’ 6&7/\_ .

grossly inadequate, as also compensation awarded under

ctmventional heads.

5. The deceased was aged about 45 _

of accident and he was working as a mason and u

dependents to care for. Having

avocation of the deceased, wee’dete11f1’i1_1’e’– the of’; tiie *’

deceased at Rs.3,00{)/~ per of
dependency’ would he
The compensation of the “I’n’bunai
under eonven;*id:eg§– ‘ .33 The same is
enhanced to” V

In ‘M __v:.re pess the following:

{The aefieavlais’ in part. The impugned award is

. V. ‘ of Rs.1,95,(){}0/~ awarded by the

éimgzxoed to Rs.3,9o,ooo/-, which shall carzy

intereet at annum from the date of petition an the

“date of fealisafion. The interim compensation paid by

with proportionate interest shell be given

&d11ct’rx:1. The Insurance Congaany shall

mlnnoed cmpcnsation with the é ” V

firmtlnmtc ofmodificd award.

V