High Court Karnataka High Court

B N Geetha vs H M Devaiah on 3 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
B N Geetha vs H M Devaiah on 3 April, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
-3-

IN THE men coum' or KARNATAKA AT   _

:>.m:--:t> 11415 THE 33" mayo?   _ é '  

 

Be :1:

1. 13.51. Gec1ha_..  

Sin late        
Aged about 4;"';¥-- 9 K  "  '

D/0 late 63.3. --BOri:_ggix=d

Aged abe-131.15  .- V 

:3. G.3.:'1S1m1-mi'  

_ 3. "1«;a;cn;hi ._ 

Li/"o late (3.3. Bdmgawda

 ' Agczl ¢£:bo1'1t'«.1v3 ymrs

   

' '(:3 latc'(.ih;iiikzalingegowda
 .a'Bt;I.N. 85 years

 .A Petfiicéiier No.1 ia the wife

V Petitioners No.2 to 3 are children
 'P1=.*iit.iaonc'.r No.4 is father of deceased
 All we Rfa (icjjalagelc
 Maddur Taluk, Mandya. ..Appcflants

 (By Smt (3. P'raaectha, Adv.,)



égéi

1. I-LM. Devaiah
S/o Madaiah
Huligercpura
MJ3. Halli Post
Maddur. Mandya Taluk
Mandya.

2, The Divisional Managtrg
United India Instuantx;  _  V .
($0., Ltd., Opp. Siwlcr Jumlcc  '

Park, M.C. Road, Mand.}r&_-57    ..Respondents

V’

This MFA» ‘unde”as::,?=’~mag11.1.?3»;_-1.1:.~51’M.v. Act against
the judment aand _3~3~Q0€}7 pass.-sad in MVC
No. 135/2005 ($11 the thevlfiivil’ (Sr.Dn.), MAUI’,
Maddur, partly ‘afiiowing “pétitien for compensation
and seeking cnhanézgnixcnt or cnmpénsaflon

_ “l’i1is “III! iin’ heating, thizz-3 day 1111: -uourt
delivered fixlifiwiiag : H “”” ”

1 ‘V i .7 7.’,-1;/’\%flr :3 G J;,§Jx»,r

‘ This tiled by the ckaimants-appellants stacking

e+.;1§1f§1$(:eti::é:xt:&oi’fiampensatian awanicad by the Triiaunal bchw.

§H€8I’d the leameci advocates appearmg on behalf of

fijanies and perused the matxmal on nxxaml.

W?

-3-

3. G.S.Ir5<meg(Hnda Lost his me in the

oecurmd on 25.11.2005, lcavmg

appellants as his legal Iepieseniaiiégs. i-HA<fi}v§a:s.:

yeara at the time of the a(,3(.'.i(l6i1¥,_ Ht-fwas sf; As:§;is5iant" L.

in Manmul I)aiIy, Grejgala" gem. figs awalded
compensation of R31), 1 llcfidé.

4. The salary ¢>ertflk$§’t.e’ 91¢”; is produced at

EXJ-‘–9, which ;7i,is:(§V3(;vrs»esi;At«t1a§bt,’ wiaiéwas iixfiwing net salary of

Rs.5,37’3_/–* and an; Rs.9.42£}[-. Apart fmm the

same, he i£z.a_s u311 ‘lhe. Rexxnrd of Rights cxuncm

are to Ex.P-1.4. It is by new well settled

fhat : has to be taken into oonaicieration whik:

under the head of loss of

V V’ . depéiadefiéy; H(lWt”f.VIE:t”, the tax ts.) be paid by the de%d will

” H ” _ Vhaw.:_ md11urt: catunot, lose. sight of the fact that deceased would have

V mtired wiihin about eight yctars. Having zegald, to the tmsfity

of the 1″am,s and (:iIc1.1mst3nCcs of the 03%, most: pHrtic’u]a1’ly,

W5

-4-

having regard tn the gross salary drawn by the

to his daath, this Court assesses the income ‘at

Rs.9.000/– per month. Out of the ‘

amount ham to be dmilmcd 1flrVE3§jId8’Vj_l’C}1(!’$E)I18l %.

deoeaseti. Having mgani ts) t1¥é’V.$§§;e_oi’ (i.e., 50

years), the proper Inuliéfiiiitsr l:_iiSV is Basal on

the aaid figures, the Rs.8,64,00{)}..
under the head. .. ,i.:;;:VVfiadciiii<31: to the same,
the claixnaafis V. <}{s.ES(),()0()/~ under four

-E~1()3f1V€’:l}.’tVZiI'(“)’ilVEi;§–. “‘l”f1’u$; in claimants-appellants are

entitled t($ 1git:;;j of Rs.9,14,()00[~. Accordingly,

_ fi1e..fi;gll{1wén.g §:_§;___;n.ade :

~. Aw};5;r_a_ “me mbuna: is modified. The. claimants»

awalded Ema] oompezlsatiun of Rs.9,14,()0(}/-

V. (3-<?,11)(:6$§"'¥;IiJl€ lakhs Ebufimn thcmsand only ) which Tm irmlusive

amoum. already awaxdcisci by the 'I'I'ibu11al, Wflh 6%

-»v.§:m,erest 13.3. on the enha11(x=.=d (x.3mpensation fmm the date of

petition till the date of It-alizaijmi. Award shall be drawn

\//”

-5-

aocnlrdingly. The apportionment and deposit ”

the imptlgnérd opcier cf the ‘l’ritmn.ai

Appeai is allowed in pact . 2 VV