INT}HEHKH{COURTCH*KARNATAKAA$I%flKM1DRE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH2o10 Q
PRESENT:
T}-IE HONBLE MRJUSTICE _ 1'
AND
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE'K;1§I.KES}1A'.rA;\:xfiA:1aA,1§IA :2
M.F.A.N0. 1886/%é'0O9 .. 1 '' Vf:
BETWEEN: . V L A
1. A.s.HEMALATHA
W/O
AGED ABQL2fT:5;4»»'1fDA¢'2si:_' "
2. KUM.NAV¥A '.50 K)G..V§§_LIPAKSf§APPA
AGED~AB()_U'.I' '
3. MASTER s1DDES-H's/GA.j{';G'.V1RUPAKsHAPPA
AGED Agaour 1,0'
APPELLANT 1§OS . 2.AND 3 'A: RE
_ MINORS REPREsE.1\m:D
BY c;uA12;D1A1\; MOTHER
APPELLANT NO. 1
ALL KATEKERE VELLAGE
KASABA 1505-3,1, ARSIKERE TALUQ
V . DISTR{CTHASSAN.
" ~ .- _ _' VHASSANVDISTRICT. APPELLANTS
V"j{"I5Y_S R;I.M.B.NARGUND AND
_ SMTSONA VAKKUND. ADVS. ,3
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appeliantsv
regarding admission of the appeal. .
admitted.
2. By consent of learned counsel ap’p+;aring’:’;for
both sides, the matter is for
3. Heard jiggarned counsel
appearing for§.tiieVVappe_11ants andt”_Sri.CVj.’Shankar Reddy,
learned respondent No.3-
Insurance pany. _'”».V
4. The ‘app”e1_1.ant”s. the wife, minor children
pg rnoth’er.Vo_f_Athe deceased Virupakshappa filed
th.e”c1aiIn’~peti’tion in MVC.No.80/2004 before the Claims
Tribunai firsikere, seeking compensation for the
‘~.__death..of«;_ said Virupakshappa who died in the motor
A accident that occurred on 2.10.2003 at about
. 2.00 p.m. According to the claimants, the deceased was
f’.
at Rs.8,037/– though as per the documentary evidence
his monthly gross salary was Rs.8,492/–; that
light of the law laid down by the Apex Court ~
of Sarla Verma and others .Vs.»..4i3eE.p1iim nu
Corporation and another reported
(SC) since the deceased pe’rman,erit the
Tribunal ought to have-…added”‘atfielast 3′()t°/<:"–of~-the last
pay drawn by the deceased prospects
and on that ought to have
been 'compensation awarded
under the cométentiiijnallheads ismon the lower side.
7. é Reddy, learned counsel
.-‘».p_vappea.rin_lg ufor “‘–th_e____.third respondent — Insurance
Com-pany’*itht5u.gh did not dispute the legal position
cont’ended.V*t1f1.a’tVthe judgment and award of the Tribunal
‘V…does’riot’§:a.ll for interference by this Court.
We have perused the judgment under appeal.
“There is no serious dispute that the deceased was
ft
953..
8
to claimants 2 to 4 put together appears to be on the
lower side having regard to fact that claimants 2. and 3
were minors and the 41?] claimant being the aged
as such the Tribunal is not justified in _
Rs. 10,000 /- under this head. Therefore. wé”are’_iinCi.ined.a: * R
to enhance the same to Rs. 10,000]; t’o*.oIairnants¢2T1.i_1
to 4 and in all, award Rs.30,0dQ(‘}/_– under
10. The eomperiisation /_” awarded
towards transportation funeral
expenses is aiso }iower_’si.d’ef”*–We enhance it to
Re.10,00o/5. Thus! “‘tii’e.::o1aiinants -are entitled for total
compensation of. _, 1 1» –.
appeal is allowed in part
enhuaneingh” eornpensation to Rs.12.96,312/- as
V”,.AA”a’ga_inst ‘Rs.9,t,v35,doo0/» awarded by the Tribunal. The
eornpensation of Rs.3,61,312/- shall carry
from the date of the petition to the date of
The third respondent — Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the entire enhanced compensation:’f«._t”=V
with interest within six weeks from today.
The apportionment and disbiirse.x:oejnt–io>
enhanced oompensation aInongst’th__e cléiinants
in the same ratio as indicated Einvyits
award.
it ‘-{RS/*