High Court Karnataka High Court

The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Praveena on 19 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Praveena on 19 November, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao& Gowda


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, cmcurr”
AT DHARWAD. E » ‘. E i E

DATED THIS THE 19111 DAY OF NOVEMBER, é E

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR..JUsT1cE k %

THE I-iON’BLE MR..ms’m:,E §_;’Sf€EENIVA3E-‘( 3OWDA

M.E.A.b£0.

BETWEEN

2. THE I}NI’FED_ IND§A”I£¥SURANCE co LTD
THROUGI-I ITS .DiVISIQNAL MANAGER
KAIKINI-ROAD”;..KA1’%WARA, NOW REP
BY MMJAGER, UNITED INDIA

J JNSURANEE co LTD, NO 25
E NA:*-“EAYANA Emma

BANGALORE. …APPELLAN’i’.

. SHIVANLANDA ADVOCATE AND
‘ A.(?:. SEIVANANAE mvocam E012 A1>1=>EL1..A.m*.)

.._ f?RAVEENA

W/O. RAVI @ NARASIMHA FRABHU
26 YEARS

occ: HOUSEHOLD WORK

12/ 0. SALEHFITAL ROAD
HONAVAR

2%

K3

2. VENKATESH s/0 NARASIMHA PRABHU % % « w _
GOYEARS ‘
occ: CLOTH MERCHANT
12/ 0. SALEHHTAL ROAD
HUDA(B-)

HONAVARA

3. PADMAVATHI
W] 0. VENKATESH HQABHI:
somaxs –

R/O. SA1.E}I1’l’PA’L.RQAD
HONAVAR

4. CHARUSHILA

Nn:»HAD TALMK _ A j
NASIK;-1)1S~:’I’*

MAHAa::AsTi2A V Rmsponmms

, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)

%>:»1I«*’A ;s mm U/S 173(1) op aw ACT AGAINST
‘1’:-:Ek%*JtJmw22~2*r Am) AWARD mama: 23.12.2003
PAS.SEfl~ INIMVC NO. 676/2001 are THE mm: 01? THE

3 CIVIL 4% QEEIIJGE (sR.DN.) & MEMBER, ADD-L. mar,

“H_omv.a&2, AWARMNG OOMPENSATION 0? Rs.
.;¢s,3 :%,.5m/- WITH manna? AT 3% rm.

‘V V _ mS5RE2EDHAR RAG, J., delivered the following; –

This Appeal is coming on for lmrhlg this day,

*3.


 



J'UDG_;@_!jI

Srishail takes notice for    _  n

One Ravi @     a

vehicle accident. His wife petition
seeking compensat;i};mf awarded
compensation at the The insurer is
in appeal awarded as
excessive; it is stated that the
multiplier, instead of 10,
since éaiaout 57 years and that the $3:
It is also stated that one—-ha1f

towards the paeonai expenses.

2. eentmztiens mm in amt are
The re-miagc rises not czwmte may Lew

V § dssaeizity rm the wife to mac mmpensanme in magma
_ I law. Hence, the mmm has rightiy taken me
[ ‘”2ii1xltiplie1’ 17, keeping in View the age of the met

petitionm; vis-é–vie the dmeed. 0ne~tmrd deducfion

towards the personal expenses is also

since there are totally three depaxdapfie.

unit system 1/4m should be A

3. The deceased
of Rs.6,000/- per month. is
defrayed towams Rs.4-,000/- is
taken as mgezasegjeor The mam loss
of ii§s;’4,000/- x 12 months 1:
17 The Tribunal has also
awaz*ded towands loss of consortium
and .1oes ef instead of coewentional sum of

each head. The eompezmatien

be termed as exewsive. Aewrdfiw, tim

Sd/-r
Judge

Sd/«-

Jefige