High Court Karnataka High Court

Lakshman vs M/S Ramesh Tours And Travels on 15 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Lakshman vs M/S Ramesh Tours And Travels on 15 July, 2009
Author: N.Ananda


MVOMU wwmgy». gm mmmmm mam mam” W mmmmm mm-at mum” W mmmam Hm»: mum” W mmm”m:~=-e:fi’.iaa:= mm was

mu.

:1, ‘v

IN THE HIGH owns: 02′ mi in’ aanmhags
man ms was 15″ nave: am?

Wm” .

-ma Hcn*aLs ua…:usf;f;m V 4

BE’l”¥EfiN:

1 Kusuma _
W/0 ‘I’ V satxanaraya.-.-::a’*–.
Aged about 5_2’~~Yoa,rs .. . ‘

2 s Kavitha ‘ ‘- . i
9/0 T If v5atyfaena.:a;’ya’mé”»L,_
Ps§0<3~'*3*'~'?°"3" 329 '¥'9*E1'3"~

3 sa'An:.i:::ia:"'-'–V__ T } V.
DI ':3, satya.n"&mga'na }

* %Ag.e_;§; abéir: 2?, "

9th Egin, “Layout,
Ii stagg, .aanga1p}:g_+’56O 0%.

. . .APPELI..A1\l’!’S
3:1 xV”ch.§:§§£;’¢shakax, Adv.)

.,. wio Amgéy

Kc. m,z,*:.19tn Crass,

$as1§a;Le§m-9-5w 678..

{:i.:i{mtnl Iusmnnca Co Ltd”,

‘ }’€c-‘.21.. xanamcsnmi sows,

flair: road, Adxgadi,

. -sanga1o.::e-560 ma. axsyoxnmrs
xsyafi. c a , am. fat 9.2}

N. r.A.2w.. 15271 4′

WW: W mwnmm Maw aawfai-zzw mmmqmm WW mmm’ W mwmmm. Wm mm? W KARNA”E”AKA mm-3 mam M mmmmm mam mm

This MFA filed :1!» 173(1) at H? Act… against
tha judgamnnt and awand datad 18.36.2087 ‘passed
in arm: 1\I¢.3708/2005 on the file of Ix.43’u:.1§ii_t:i.¢nn1
Judge, Member, mm’-‘:, Cuurt at 81!-.a}g.’;..'<~.'f§1.1s..ea,
aangalarn, scum-'I, partly al1aw:$.r:_gt_ t'iia "*– c:i3,d.fi,,az

petitrion for cozpenaaticn and see1§5.ngx erj_:hxnt:am§r:t.._

far cazxwanaation.

This appeal coairtg $11 fix? éérgiorfi 5

the court dalivarsd the £o13.9&ing:~ w, «.
a u n Gffi 3 N $.j ?

The matter is ;1sg¢§ :6: gaaisaioa. with the

consent aifupartiea it is

taken {:9

‘Etta apiheal far mhancemant

W %a;k%;%-g.¢e%*a..ru sri R.Chandra snexar,

‘ 3.3azt¢’na6..Aco1.§Vr£§7é’i appearing for ctlnimnnts aw 51:1
V learned counsel is: the Insurance

1 have; bun takan thraugh tha imugnod

¢rcI e£;..

4:. ‘Phi tribunal taking intc: cansidemtian

E the occupatien cf the dncaased as a Priest has

assessed his income at R3.4,599/- 9.3. which, in
my cqnsidexed opinicn, aces net call far

intarfexanca. ‘I’M nuctaasad was aged sham: 55

W A C}@;’sL/M.’

.*’4mV&£M”i’Wwul W ammmuwm-amwm m-2ww-%.swI:M§§i_:’wir’-nflfimflliwflm -:’l’IwW- cu-uum’ m~’amxNm’rmm-‘1-§mWEQ’U’R? OF KRRNMJAWA HWM mam” 0? MRNMAWA mm-‘¥§ QQW

years at the time :2! atzcident. Tharu.f__;>_.re,
multiplier apprwxiata ta his aga smuld

Thus, capitnliaad loss at da;*aané._. _

R5. 3,96,BOGf”‘.

5. In View at the
following order: » A. V» Z
The appeal is ,a.§.:cepf;e§.VVV:AEi1;1
ccwensation by the
tribunal 1;’. §nna2xc’a.af; 2931» with
interest the data at
pntitiqgz 1 V ” §v:”o€3.fi; aatia:a.
.::11=s;:oments 1 and 2 is
joint
§i.v: e5§tec1 to bear their casts.

Sd/…

Judge