IN THE HIGH COURT cap KARNATAKA AT BA'2§{'r§£é " H
DATED THIS THE 15*}: DAY Qrs"'1:>.E(:;:;I§+:B13:.z§i;V':.i:3rj§a
PRESEN'I' '. '
THE HONTSLE MR.JL}$*r§'::E'
% . Ar{l3-- V:" -. .% V5
'THE HGN'BLE 1'v'.;i?é..I{§$'i§ffL'I§:'fiV:_}§§§MANNA
{*1 F_:.4''1vn,1l%33§5?Z'~?.5?}24 "
BETWEEN; %
1 Kindxm, 7- 3 ~
WfG"ia.t;: "TB: (3 i§:'1x11k{fis,i1nanV '
:2 K
S':/0 iétg: KC} LI_nnik1:%§.'£1znan
yra. '' Appellants
;_§a»m are £9/aiacsar No.105
'Manantiavadi Road
_ "ly_Iahast§evapura
"'?~4':s*$-.I'e§"'
' (By Srti C.hIT£SfGph(3I' Neal, Adv.)
A' «Magma:
" S3/0 Vagir Sal)
Major, rja Beokta Kanya
Janatha Street
Jayapura Hobll
Mywre Taluk
2 N Rajashckhara
S/0 K Nanjundaiah
Major, I'/a 2909/1,
Seebaiah Street
Bevaraja Mohaila
Mysore
3 United India insurance: {3o."Ltd
Rep by its Manager
1259/60, Vinobrn-.RoadV.V""' -. ~ ~
Mysore ' 5 ' . Respondents
(By Sri Prccfi K1;:mar,Adv.for'B.C$';V-Scétharama Rae,
_' "A;iv.4forjR~3; '
R-'se; &'2.,se:e2w)v'
This VMRA is sécfion 173(1) of MV Act
against' a£xd_"awani"'dated 21--$2004 passed in
MVC No. 185/§i£3.Vex:j»1"the' ~f1ie»--._;%" the Prl.I Civii Judge (Sr.Dn) 85
MACT, "*_Myso'1<-:_ éJ.10.w'iI1g the claim petition for
compensation and s€:4;eki11"g._e:1hanccm.e:1t of conupensation.
; This MFA €:0 n1i§i.g on for hearing this Clay, DEEPAK
V. «_ gie1ive¥1r3ci...tTi:1€a following:
JUDGMENT
AV(§ii’1:ist()§hcr Noel, learned 0921:1331 appeared far
u and Smt Prccti Kumar, learned counsel for
.’ f@S@dhdCnt*3.
12. On 1-14999 at abaut 3.9.45 a.m. deceased Radha
Krishna was pracceémg on the motor cycie kcrtping to his
7%
left sicicz, nztspoxzdcnt No.1 dmve the lorry bearing N0.I§§;;:O9–
3841 in a rash and negligent manner on the (if
the mad thereby the said lorry dashed fly: K
Radha Krishna Whfl sustained scv::14céAA»Vi3;1}”¢:z:iti«s, $:1e §vba.sV}’VaiV(::31″‘.
to he-spita} in Mysore but suocumfiéd ?Qzt11c
day. At the rcicvant point cf ti1n:é;V«Vdect:;.z’3s:r;d ‘wzgigs as V
13603 in the fiaflway “ax of
Rs.3,856/~. %
3. On MACT, Mysore
by mothéfVTami1:yo{£i;ger”‘b1i3thc£’._’df Radha Krishna,
it was JE8.’5/ 1999. An award came to
be passed ifihemby and whcrcundcr for death
*’~.__0f !{1ish3iia’v.a,….totaI amount of Rs.4,23,312/~ with
in’J:€1*€:$tv._V;itM rate of 6% p.a. has been awanicd. This
épfiiéai is for enhancement.
Iiabifiiy of the insmance company and
négiigcnfgt: on the part of driver, fimt respondent whilc
lorry, bclenging to n=:spondcnt~2 have not been
” Eiisputeci, it is not ncccssazy for us to reiterate the manner in
which acciclcnt had taken place. Liabflity of insurance
H
\.
company to pay amount of oommnsation. is also rwt.:
dispute as for the relevant period a valid po1icy:–.[fi1:« ~
existence. Thus, we would only co:1sidM¢r,whcthér”aft:yr¢$ajt}.
amount as mentioned herein above awéardejd’ t1:’1»:=:_clza:11I1:” 7-I’
is just and proper or it deserves ‘ht; cniiaziécd. *
find from the award that Inox1tl1l3»fv’:V:’_?:i’1;vV@}£115c ‘
has been assessed at it, a sum of
123.751» shouid havqhccn ageing paid to
him towards ‘r.A_f Tribunal of
course, aforesaid amount.
5. Wc aifioé in the award that
mullipljgr of. .1′? afisioptcd taldng age of the deceased
V” i2:7hé:§éa$,’*ig1 the facts and mm’ umstanccs of case, age
of No.1 shcmhii have been taken into
V “‘
deducted towards expenses of deceased 1 ”
awarded under various heads is (m lowerésid.-*’_:’. u
reasons rewarded by us wherein t\x?£§ in:§i:rniitiés {if
have been pointed out, we ‘t5pi:1§;i{;11u
has been made: out fox: ~ to
appellants. The appeal However,
WC are not deducting awarded {:2}
the pitferrcd any cross
appeal or” gréassf Thcztforc, no
case haf, mfducfion of amount already
awarded }:i’)}T.V:?’1§bflIi%3i :_4I”{.?i1;:t§11V.}..i1«E11″i(:f3l:7i}{?1}f1.
The eriismisseti. impugned award is
hez’¢V1j3r« ai¥iE R{:§§§ndcnts shall bear Costs throughout.
visfixcci at Rs,3,00{)/-.. Amount deposited in
the A11…gVmc_ rsaf shail now he released their favour.
Sdfig
Judge
Sdfé
f%p Iudgb