High Court Karnataka High Court

Abdul Fafoor Sab S/O Mahboob Sab … vs Chamanlal S/O Daulatram Rajput on 28 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Abdul Fafoor Sab S/O Mahboob Sab … vs Chamanlal S/O Daulatram Rajput on 28 September, 2010
Author: V Jagannathan
BEYIVVEEN

i.

_E\.J

_ 1 _
IN '.I'HE IWIIGH COURT 01?? KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT I-3};::1\:c1-1 AT GULBARGA
DATED Tms TH 1»: 25w DAY OF' SEP'l'E3MBi§R. 2010
I-SELFORE T >
THE HoN'BLI«: 1V1R.JU STICE    ~
M.F.A.N'o.31884 0_F..2Q()9 : f:   
ABDUL GAFOOR SAB

S/O MAI-EBOOB SAB HAJJAR_GEWAI..Ij3 
AGE 62 YEARS. OCC:NII, ' .

SHAIK MEHBOOB  _  -  
S /0 ABDUL GAFOO.R"SAB'_ HAJ.,J1--*xRGV]\V,A}..E
AGE 42 YEARS, OCCiAGRICE§j"E.'1TvURE.__   .

s1:IA£.K}fi" 1v1.{YAj\} "
S/O ABDUL GAr0QR..sAB .
AGE 3'? YEARS-'.,._ occ~:._AG.R1CU::rURE

MO HI) ; FAEZ M  ,. " "  V.
s/0 ABDUL GAP'OOR..SAB HAJJARGEWALE

;AGE 34  ()CC:AGRlCUL'i'URE

"  "A:;.I;= R /Q : KAM'Fi%iA.NA VII..LAGIE

V .. _V ';:g; &_L3;s~1#;;:a:I)AR

"' {.1_i3Y..SR.'{  BERADAR. ADV. )

AN

. ..APPELLANTS

{§F'vfA;MANIAA}J

'  ,3/0 DAUIA/\'I'RA1\/I RAJPUT

AGE 52 YEARS. ()CC:'I'RANSPC)RT

H EBUSINESS. R/ ():RAM NAGAR COLONY

(XVIII) R} ROAEL). BIDAR DI STRI CT



-2-

§».}

'I'I"lf3 BRANCH MANAG ER

NEIVV INDIA ASSURANCE': CO1 Ill)

¥'I,.(3'}' NO.2.SlNDOI. C()'%.\/EPLEX

S'I'ATI ON ROAD . B I DAR

 RESPONDENIVS
{BY SR! R V 'i\§ADAG()U{)A, ADV. FOR R2 
AND l\EO'l'iC!?3 TO Rl DISPEi\5SI €D \VE'E'l-I}

Tins MFA is Fll-E1") U/S 173(1) OF *i*i--ii::_;iv1'x/*..';'~.<.':f1*i' ,i9~88
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS MISC. FIRST Al"'PE3AL; MoVi:vi'i~"Y..'i"ii£;

IMPUGNED JUDGM'}331\I'l' AND AWARI) ;)AfF_E_;O_ ' 2;.Qs.2'oog3 
PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRESIOVINO OFFiCi3§< 1'«"1'C;»_1 1--'--;i\§D' .
MACT AT BIDAR IN MVC NO.82;{2oo_7'ANO -»E-Mimi-;.CE:VV1'}iE v

COMPENSATION As PRAYEI) FOR. "FH{i_ "iN*rE,Ri:si*1.i.OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.    " '   

This appeal. is Coming adnz.ies’iO.i*.1 tiiislllday. the
Court: Cleliverecl the following: — ~ i

This appeal is of finally with

Consent. of the E::3.fried’«vCo’unseis for the parties.

2. The “:1p”p.el1.ants’ who are the Claimants before

f”.h€_§:’TI’*ib1}I”lEil ._V_vCé:i1l in question the quantum of

,C’ompe_nsg1i:iohV E1.WE11″Cl€C1 by the Tribunal on the ground that

in applying wrong multiplier and also

C(i)11§si(le–ifed’ “ihe income of the deceased at lower figure of

5400/? per month. The facts are ac)’: diséapme and so also

— %:h:4 liability on the. part’ Of I11s1,1ra11Ce Ciompziiny to pay the

./~:’T

e3_

C()I1’lp€I1Sé.i1.i()I1. So far as the ‘loss of depemtlencty’ atnourit
is eoncemeci. the MAC’? shouid have considered the

income of the deceased at ‘$3.000/W per moritfi

deducting I /31″” and applying multiplier

to the age of the deceased \§;=’hit:’i1~.w’;~1s.:.f’5_OV.yea1-“S,Eigiief’ it

compensation under the head (of
come to ?i3,l2,000/– and “«1(:.is’sV
further sum of $10,099/§.=iS” “l;1tie”‘t(5ta1 amount
under the eonventiontiié at ?’40,000/–

the e0mpens;;tiQ_1fi_’–i.o entitled to will be

?3,62.:OOC/accordingly modified and
imeresxt. is at on the amount now
qL1ap,i’i_fied.4″”‘ V.

V” A:p})eia.i is ziiieififed in part.

_ “;:=,R*1’=’*?’