IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG'r'%s--L;(3VVEi_E:4".«' if
DATED THIS THE 17*" DAY OF FEBRUA_RY,;_:2Q1:Q:'~ % A' A
PRESEN:f
THE HON'BLE MR. 3us,T:ia.,..._
Agiafd aboutE53V_vearsV."~«.___ _ ~
2. smt.'aamnam'n§ia, f _
W/0. Ad-i.navrayrgappa~,
'Aged. abou-tx38'yea'rs.
' 'i3~oti'hfarenresidents of \/.V.Puram,
" --{?:TQ'x«:rtb:i'u:ia"m3r,
Koiar'-«District.
K ...APPELL.ANTS
(By. Sri,__;' Rahamathuila Shariff, Adv.)
Mohammad Sharief
S/0. Abdul Rasheed,
Auto Owner,
Gowribicianur,
Kola: District.
L .
2. United India Assurance Company Limited,
No.143 & 144, C.K.N. Chamber,
1" Cross, Sheshadripuram,
Bangaiore - 20.
3. Sri. Sriram Reddy,
S/0. Naraynappa,
Aged about 52 years,
Tempo owner Fort,
Gowribidanur Town,"
Koiar District.
4. National Insure-avnce,C0';-Lt'd.,'-_ '_ V
11: Floor, i;;'nit:.i3,i'uildi=ng ,;A.n'he>.<,'* ,
Mission_.Rr3a,d,?;jV_V__-:_ ~ 1 _ .. 2
Bangaidre . " ,
Rep.. by its ''fvi'a;n_ayge,r;' , *
:RESPONDENTS
(By Sri’.=S’. Adv. for R2;
Sri. A.M;’\_/_eini<ate_sh, Adv, for R4;
R1 _&.R3 name ~d,ispe=ns'e»d with)
i"%iiis,A%:a~ppeai iuswfiied under Section 173 (1) of MV Act
iagair.st'-th'eV%'j;iVdjgment and award dated 24.02.2004 passed
any"i<ivc',rxi:;y.a31/1997 on the fiie of the xxx Addi. smaii
Ca4Lise's.«V3u'd.ge, MACT, Bangaiore (SCCHM17) partiy aiiowing
i.th_e "c-iaim petition for compensation and seeking
2' 'ven_h'ancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for hearing this day,
SREEDHAR RAO 3., delivered the foiiowing:
%/
petitioners are entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards..~lossl_l’~o_f
expectancy and Rs.10,000/~ towards funeral i-
all, the appellants are entitled to _a…to__tal comp*ensa’tio’ii.Vofv_V T”
Rs.2,87,000/– as against Rs.1,78;poo/~.frayiaraséa
Tribunal.
3. The deceased,_Awas”an” of anlauyvto which
was hit by a tempo. The iirguria that auto is
nal has found
uninsured and:..tem’po insured’.
50% ‘the””‘p~a’rt of auto and tempo.
Petitioners”coritend’tha»tyV_tii.e’re. is no negligence on the part
of the auto.*–._V%TheVic-haitglesheet material discloses that the
_tem_p’o. ag_ainst”th_e_..auto and the rod of the auto pierced
into”thge-v.helavdl.éo’f–.the deceased which resulted in the death.
The”drivVeri3@?fVA’p1=tem:30 is flrosecuted. The charge sheet
‘uVmateri.al”discloses that the driver of the auto is not
“..jjprosie.cAuted. Keeping in view the manner of accident, the
–lll’.–Thr’.}b’unal has rightly found that there is composite
negligence to the extent of 50% on the part of the auto.
Hence, whatever order passed by the Tribunal with regard