High Court Karnataka High Court

Arogyaswamy vs H S Gangadhara S/O Shivappa on 15 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Arogyaswamy vs H S Gangadhara S/O Shivappa on 15 December, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
III THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATMQ AT BANGALORE
QATEI) THIS THE 15* DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MR.JUSTl{3E SUBHASH BADI

M.F.A.NO.1 I306/2097 {MVC3
 =

1 ARQGYASWAMY
S/O MUTHANNA ”

‘l”!£A{..11-ilfik, AGED ABOUT’ 55 YEA1<'m,
w=-.s'*3.A;~L

2 ' .._TH£'.V.NEsai*IND1A ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
CHACKMAGALORE.

– RESPONIJENTS

(35: Sri : VISHWANATH s SHET’I’AR, ADV. FOR R2)

Jzifiizhltik

MFA FILED U/3173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

~’;Ju1.)(;M1s:N’r G5 AWARD i.)A’l’ED 11/9/mm mssmu nu

MVC l’~EO.277/99 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE(SD} 65 ADDL MACT, HASSAN, PARPLY ALLOWING

THE CLAIM PFJTITION FOR COMPENSATION 87. SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

This appeal coming on for admission this day. the
Court delivered the following:

JIlD%EHT

Since appellant No.1 died, memo is filed

appeiiant No.2 as the legal representative of .1. 3

Memo accepted. Since appcliant N03? is T. T

she is trcatcd as legal rcpmsentafive of 1

2. This is claimants’ cfihanfigméht of
compensation in Iespecf in MVC
No.27′?f1999 dated}. parents of

the deceased. ..

3. 5011 one I-1…}. Kishorc
accident on 21.2.1999

and succunibztgi to VVt’r.=.cV Parents claims that. he was

..studyi:i.g usécond fiat Qiploma in Civil Engineezing and was

_§:an.1iz;g4.:9″”Rs.1O,G0G/– simultaneously. Tribunal

of the deceased and also takm’ g into

j V .11si;:9.i.¥’c’::’2t4.’;1′.(:>.1;*.””-11:2 nature of study, granted compensation of
,6(}'{)..,’– towards Ross of dependency, in all granted

gmigeagauen of Rs.2,15,ooo/-.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the ciaimant
submits that, the deceased was studying Second year

Diplsma in Civil Enfinemting ané earn more than

-3-
Rs.I0,0{)(}/«. He also submits that. having regard to the

qualification and future prospects, has granted. meager

compensation.

5. Sri Vishwanath S.Shettar, 1ea:med

appeariag for the insurer submitted that, as per .

claimant had. only studied ssnc qua1jfib_cafic3iI3i#cP§3V ” 2

indicates that, he was studying,’ eigtesnja ” 455*

Engineering and he has not ccn:;p3aeted_ fee’ ‘V

there is 1:10 questicn of earning

6. It is not in dispufi: studying

second year Diploma at “ii cannot be

disputed the diploma and
had bette1’4”:1vjar<;c,atioL_.1'e3.S.€};4 " fcr'«the parents it is great 1033.

Considering '-I of the opinion that the

was second year Diplcma, in one year

the Diploma Course and started

' such circumstances into account, the
._e:__ iz1ecme' of deceased could be taken at–1east Rs.4,5{}O 1..
and if that is taken R3.3,24,000/- (2.25{)x12x12)
ganted towards the 1033 of dependency and the

"elaijmants are also enfitled for Rs.50,w0[- towaxds 1033 cf

love and afiection, funeral expenses. In all, the claimants

are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,'74,0()€)[– as against

Rs.'2,}.4,6€}{)/~ awarded by the Tribunal with 6% interest
fmm the dam of petittien till payment.

Accoxtlingly, this appeal is partly ailowcd.

*AP/ —