High Court Karnataka High Court

Kum Gangamma D/O Siddanna vs The Managing Director on 12 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Kum Gangamma D/O Siddanna vs The Managing Director on 12 August, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
:2... Nagmigijv *
  1V181Vye:m;,'o¢c: Amtcultum.

  \Fi1'!;:a_;gc Raflcal, Tq. Chinclmli,
"« Di$t."~ C§u.1barga.  APPELLANTS

 1.

Goxalmath Slo Kafiapm

IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA cmcurr BEZfiiQfi :’ .

AT GULBARGA H M %
DATED THIS THE 1211: DAY OF Autium f 1 xi
PRESENT 3 %
THE Howsm: MR. JUSTICE K;:’V$REEf[£)HAR%,R;xc$f”
THE HOIWBLE MR.

BETWEEN: _ ._ % _ 1

1. Kum. Gaaganima :2; » ‘
Dlo Si§:dann:si”5.j, .4
@ sindappa Hanéirifl, ” ‘
Age: 20 ytzarsa; ‘ ” .

Occ:AgIicu1t111e, A

W] 9′ Handml,
L Age: 65
Hsnuschold, All R/o

(BY SMT. MANJULA N. ‘I’EJASWl, ADVOCATE)

4/_

2. On ne-consideration of the cvirlencc we find ” .

unit system 1/4* of the moo’ me should be

personal expenses. Thus, a sum of Rs, ~;

to the benefit of dependents. The’ mta1 “1p$af e.§.r

would be Rs.3,o2,4oo/– [i.e. Rs. ‘(mcoxj:Le;.;;’ :2 [‘(m”;s;=é:’t1::~.’».)%%’

x 14 (multipliezjl. The éxxaaed E0
Rs.20,000/- towards loss {if “R s.10,G0{)/-
towards funeral entitled in
Rs.3,52,400/~– gs by the
Tribunal and. 913 the intcmst at
the rate of 6pJ,_£}_ date of petition till

– _ tI:§”a;;m_–Wa~’: is allowed in part.

sal-

Judge

sa/-L
Judge

‘ 5 ~»!§i~.”v*