High Court Karnataka High Court

B Revathi Subraya Somayaji vs Malyanath Kande Rao Shelukar on 16 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
B Revathi Subraya Somayaji vs Malyanath Kande Rao Shelukar on 16 October, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Malimath
 '~  . 2. E.'-é;§W§3.E|¥r1'r~2»€J'r:>4r:v:vT

BETWEE EN' ':A E. fig V

1. SF"%§R'[i..A 'B.._Ré»'.aTifT.i'  Somayag' i,
Aged ~ab<3ut 4-7 \;Ef'a.rg',"----.EV
W/0 iatét. SL1bra-ya'-Somayagi.

 'Agéd abE3L_J§i 21 years.

I- _}<.:.é :33  «S L..'r_(l:« izth a,
 Ageé «":3'§1i{)l.,]'t :6} years.

 ;3{g3;.3e!¥arTts E'=éELL'}E;.i§§TS

{By Sri Hjaikara Stietty, Advocate}

AND:

U)

Sri Maiyariath Kande Rat),
Si"ie|z.i%<ar, Major,

R€',S§C.i€I1i' of i\iitti___ir,. V
Neeiariga Taiuk, Lathrgrp 
District, Maiwarasmra. '

Sri Sofia? Bapusa f}'3.i1g€,'=M'3j'OT,' 
Sfo Bapusa E)e3r1ge;--.. f '_   '
HOU'S€:' i\ie.E_4S3, \f\/ai'ci.;i\}o.2.§3',I

i'a,-"'E7' Tate Gaiii, Eslaim-;)L,J_r'a, V A _ V
Taiwa Tami-.:--,"s;--;«;i~igi;a D£_,str=éCt.,_ ' "
i'v1aiiarash?t-ra£;j,_-'V --  _ 

The Ui'ii{.,(:'(]" Iriciia §i3SLe:'rance
CG'. Ltri . , i'E3i.,Efii'i'1§,'ri,§¥'c'i,

._"'é?.23iEix_\_/Va '}f'aia.:£<,"'Sv;-mgii District
fvéa has ra séytra.

 E§é:ci.i=i'3si1i\.-'§,».F4i ajor,

0 N as !f:3\,./7a ma S Eriettiga r,

"~«.S&ilé__granr=ia PO. i<ari<ada

\/':.iIage, Uciupi

 n T T_aiu..i€ 81 District.

 2?:-2s'i§;ay'y°a Aciiizsi", i\/iajor,

S§;'z3- late; Si"ie:.m%<5:r ii\t';ha;',
SEiii§}¥'Eii'"i'"ia P.O.i<ar§%:5triCt.

ab"

 



8/

6. Oriental insurance
Co. Ltc§., z9ta£}hLi Building
Municipal :V§ain
Road, Kunoiapura,
Licéupi District.

(By Sn 8.C.Seetharama Rao, Advocate, for  
Sri Al/l. l<i'%shna Swami,/, Acivocate, for R6). 

fins f«E?'xf\ is fileci under s%.;jc£:ion fTt7"3»(.fc.)'"ol'~..§v§..\/Vigct

against the Juclgment and Award tEate--<323.01,_2OG4, 
in M\/C.l\Io.1634/2000 on fL?"§_€ fi£"e._ of tl1e""§Ziy_%l Jvj.JC§gC:'_ 
(Sr.Dn), & Meicnber, Addition.al';~,_l\/lAC'i',.__l<ian§.a;}"z.ivra';"partly"

allowing the claim petition foi*i'Vv:joi"n_pensé:i%fiA_on'am; seekirig
enhancement of compensation-~.-- ,   

T_hi_s  coij1'%i-i'gi--'  final hearing this day,
SREE{)'l%Al<'eeF1F\O 3.7;' '£§e_li've'red tliiefollowing : ~

Oiiei~Stii3,s'aya S.o"m.a~%ya}% an inmate of a Maaxicab died

in V-'l'.'i';'.;.iT]vQ"tC_\§'Vv veh"Iclev_'_a__ccic'lent caused by the offending Lorry

» §;{"§'S:;{e<§_ wtit«l.i_itn._€' 3"' respondent. The wife and 3 ciiilclren of

tne’~t%ecVea%:ecl'{:fi’led a Petition seeking compensatiori and are

in a”i;oe’aal seeiong enl’ianc:ei’nent of compensation

iltze O«;i{TLll’?’€’fiCE:’ of B36 accitlent, negligence of the

‘i.t:i’i”i-aegis” cal’ ?;¥’a{–;? ofi”en:’léng vefiicle, coverage of insurance are

, . . R E s PO M iii» _

…4_

not in dispute. the aopeal confines oniy to erthahcetheiit of

COl’TlDEi1SE1tlO§’l .

3. The deceased is said’ to be an «E”ig?’§C{5i’Ei..4~:ii’~’«§.5.’f[4″t._i;E:i’iVji’l,ét1′

is”: construction of Gobar gas and Blowmahi_.ir_e~-..lVl’e.t’l”ioi::i:{‘o~f__

cultivation. The deceased had

Typewriting in English &_i~_irt£fiCVates’teigsdetl by the
auditor to show hésvzjjiricomien :.thie”..ioeriodV'”1V§9E>»97 to

lvlai”c.h3__19.9-8.VVVV’The_»’Vgr”o’svs:”avn:-.-ual income for the said oenod
fimtiatés_’bietw’eei’-i.’A’e.§;’e.t1′;ooo/W to es.i,8e,ooo/2. The

awelliaots–;3e’t:.ti_oriers’ have not produced the Income~Ta><

V' ReturnsietoéAcovrroborate the income as Rs.3'.,86,979/W. The

.Qet_§t.ilAo"rie'i'.sV_ §ia!J'e produced R.O.R. to Show about 9 1/2

guihtas.-__'o'i'-holding a garden land' It is also stated that the

de«::eeae.'ed was a Ar<:hal<. But, however no material is

W_o'rot2"tJced to Show his profession of Archak. The Tribunal

= .–on the basis of the above material has assessed the

moht'hiy imtome of the pet:'t:'ohei° at Rs.f3,{}{}O;"- per month.

W';

“§”§’:%:% a:”*s'”:g.:2″:§ g32£%”=ga2%’3§T-:13 ?;:2:’2 ;mm;§

£3″: $%:x:€:{§ $9-gfisgéi wfiéi %,§*:e%g §§§%”£§§%'”§ m;%3§§:–sf§~

‘JUDGE

*3UDGEfg?