High Court Karnataka High Court

Krishnan Aghoramurthy vs Muniraju C on 31 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Krishnan Aghoramurthy vs Muniraju C on 31 January, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao S.N.Satyanarayana
..1._

EN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE47.

mATaD TEES THE 315' ngy or JANUARY fiéégifajé-"

PRESERT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE?x.3RE§afiAfiTRAbVfaTw,-

Afifit
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE:§;N5SATYA§ARAY§¥A

M.r;A;mo,7§é3féa53(}%f)H°'V

C/w M.F.A;Mo,748§{2Gfi3 (KW)

IN MFA No.74e3k:ao3$

BETWEEN

1 KR£SH&Afi AGRGRAMURTHY"~w'
T 3/0. DR;K.WAGH0RAMURTHY
PH£s$NTL¥*RfAT.N0,"43?9,
DULCET STREET, SAJGSE
CALLIGQRNIA, cA*9513e,T
Vu,3.A;=REp BY 9A"HoLDER,
"gs.RAMANATaAN, IAs<RETD)
.fNo;,354, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
.3 3A9§$HITANAGAR
"BAM§ALGRE--~8O
."~f» 'fr' ... APPELLANT

{By.: azsfisfiwaakaswgmy RAMEAS )

 =

TTj1_fmUNIRAJv c, ADULT,

WORKING AS DRIVER AT K.S.R.T.C.
BANGALGRE EEPOT

TANK BUND RGRD

S38 HNEGAR

BANGALORE – 550009

2 THE GERERAL MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C. B.T.S. DEPOT
TANK BUND ROAD
SRDRSHZVANAGAR
BAGNALDRE “G9

.§, REsP@§DE$Is E

(By Sri: P M NAWAZ, ADV. FOR R2

R1-NOTECE DISPENSED w;wH*§’

THIS MFA IS FILED’ uys 1?3(1a OF Mv ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT’_AND: AwAR§,guATEm:4.8.e3
PASSED IN MVC wo.265f95 foN,$3E FILE OF THE ABEL.
CIVIL JUDGE @sa,$DN;) &uCJM &,MAci, KOLAR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CEAIM Pezxwlex FOR COMPENSATION ANQ
SEEKING ENHANCEMEHT GE CDMPENSATION.

IN MFA 748S?20o3&. – ”

BETWEEN u_” A}

1 _KR:sHNAN,AGHoRAMURTHY
.;s/6; DR.K: AGHCRAMURTHY
‘w PRESEEILY R/RT NO. $379,
A _DULCEY STREET, SAJOSE
V_”€ALLI@cgN:A, CA 95:36,
‘: sgs A, REP BY PA HOLDER,

,’s.RAMANATHAN, IAS(RET§)
* No; 35%, 4TH MAIN ROAB,

sAa3sH:VANAGAR

;L BANGALORE ~80

. A9PELLANT

ggyflw/s suxnaaaswamy RAMDAS )

1 MUNIRAJU C, ADULT,
WORKENG AS DRIVER AT K.S.R.T.C.

6:4?’/IA,

BANGALORE DEPOT
TANK SUNS ROAD
SUBHASHNAGAR
BANGALORE – 560009

2 THE GENERAL MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C. B.T.S. DEPOT
TANK BUND ROAD
SADASHIVANAGAR
BAGNALORE ~09

.:, REspcN§g§:s 7;”

(By Sri : P M NAWAZ FOR R2r_”

R1~NOTICE DISPENSE§ WI?fij,’

THIS MFA IS FILED’ UXS “1?3{1J OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT~ AND: AwAn§.jnATED:4.8.o3
?ASSED IN MVC wo.161/93,}oN_:HE sin: 0? $33 ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE_4sa;}nN;) ;_cJM.& Macy; KOLAR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CEAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION ANS
SEEKING ENHANCEMEET 03 COMPENSATION.

THEs£,fipPE§$s Cémlfie 03 P03 ORDERS THIS DAY,
sazmnaaa RAOVJ}{‘DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘”= *,gg§§MENT

Both”,_appveal_sV’.ar\iégae cut of same accident in

resp£–§fi’:€L’.of ti”1eV._ civeat:?.n of Dr.L.}-‘agoramurthy and his

wife smtgmeénakshi.

.AV§;r–:§Ag0ramurthy and Smt.Meenaksh3′. were

tra*se’.el}.§;ngV.:’~’in a Fiat: Maruti car. The wife was

‘”.__ d;fijvi:€g__’Ehe ca from Bangalore to Tirupati. Wixen

hh’defkeye&.towardexbereonal expenses. Rs.SG,5GG/-

‘T*RS,ih,OOO/~ for funeral expenses. In all the

*, fietitiener is entitled to compensation of

..5..

sheet filed by the Police diselosee that’i:t”»..is
eeieiy on account of the negligence of bus et#%et_
the accident occurred. In View of thateethehtietuh-
material found in FER the jfifidingh of htrihuaaiK
that there is contributory neaieeehce eh the eattt
of driver of car is unteaahle. hHenCe.,ithgé§:te h

_ . e_ ._ : ‘m_W_

be held that the ,eecideeth*oeeurred’~sQle2y on

account of the neglifiehce gf baa efiiver.
4mm’-W °~»:”**”””

3. MFA…::ao.§3§_>;3¢:«9é3_: :1r§2’xz;:t.’1xi};»h;”2’65/1995)
This =,’eeee “h~§é}u§;fis:§ to death of

Dr.Ageramurthy._ The income tax returns shows the

total fiat _ineeee– aa””Rs.1,01,000f-p.a. The

deceased Qa$[ aged 7aheut 65 years. 59% to be

hY§ie.’¥eeu1dhueaure to the benefit of dependent.
Theyw tQtai:fi loss of dependency would be
‘v._Rs.4,5.4}.5oa/- {Re.SO,5002<;9). The petitioner is

Veeatitled to Rs.25fiOO/* fer loss of expectancy and

K

<£F/It

Accordingly, the appeals for enhan¢éméfifiLé:¢"_

allowed.

*. 2 ‘ }fii¢hgeF~_’q ;

,?f ;;R k1 LJ%ui§fi3

Nd/~