IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY or AUGUST, 2910
BEFORE V %'
TI-IE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREEN1v__;.§F;
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. .8373"of * .
Between
1. Lakshmidevi
W/0 Pandurangappa, 9 _
Aged about 38=Y.ears,.<'"" =
2. Pandurangappa VA " V
S/0 Dasappa _ if
Aged ;abr3y_i: 40=__YearS *
Both a:fe,.R/0 .Ké{agote§
VV..Chiti*adu117ga. " ' " 3'
V . ..Appe11antS
uR_vNa:garaja, Adv.)
_ "..,4I\/I["s;:"'Nat1onal Ins. Co. Ltd.,
A vv..B-yits-Branch Manager
P'.B;_. No 94, B M Complex
Bazaar,
.. {Zhitradurga---577501
A E V Dhayakumar
S/o E. Vajrappa
Vljaya Motors,
Owner of bus KA--16/7255
R/o. Hosadurga
Chitradurga Dist.
Respondents
{By Sri. A N Krishna Swamy, Adv. for R1,’
Sri. Mohammed Subhanulla, Adv.:.fo.r_;R,_2}’.j’ _ ”
This MFA is filed U/S 1-‘~?3{»i)’of’_;i\/N”a(;t;”againsta.
the judgement and award dated :16..fO2–.2.0_O8 in
MVC No.1273/2006 on the file “of II Addit1on”aI’._C’ivil
Judge [Sr.Dn.} & Additi0ria1._VMACT,’f2hit.1faCi:L1ifga,gpartlyL.
aikowing the claim petition. for ‘~-coinpensation and
seeking enhancement for eo_rripen_sation.. _ F
This appeal codrriirigd this day, the
Court, delivered the”fo11ofwir1g.:»e’_’ ‘
by the claimants seeking
enhancdement of eom.f5ensation.
.For’«.the sake of convenience parties are referred to
~. “has __aife”‘referred to in the claim petition before the
‘i’ri’ti-‘i,1n’a1”.
* Brief facts of the case are:
That on 10.05.2006 when deceased Nagaveni @
Nagamma with her mother, sisters and brother was
%.
waiting for bus near l\/LG. Circle on the left side of
Huliyar road at Hiriyur town to go to Halamadenahally
a bus bearing No.KA-l6/7275 came in a
negligent manner and dashed against ‘_
she sustained injuries and died”‘oii«the Helrree he-rd’ ‘ j
parents filed a claim petition
seeking compensation of
by the impugned judgment’ aniilvglarryardihasawarded a
compensation of Rs. ,1″? \vit’njirit_erest at 6% pa.
4. As. the death of
of the injuries sustained
by liter faecident occurred due to rash
negligent: of the offending vehicle by its
and th’e’vliability of Insurance Company the only
p”oint,re3nains for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether the quantum of
Veompensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper or does it call for
reduction?
it 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties
and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the
%.
‘ . _,cornip.en..s’ation.
View that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and
therefore it is deserved to be enhanced.
6. The deceased was aged about 13_y.ear’s.
of her death in the accident as. ‘
mortem report Ex. P 4. was-._a” minori’
in ‘7″? Standard.
7. The matter ito’iiiiiawarding.i__compensation for
the death 9 to 15 years is
viofiu Court in the case of
S. “us A. R. Shivashankar
andothers 11.12 2008 Kar 1896 wherein
this has awarded Rs.2,25,000/- as
it V. the said decision, the appeal is allowed
in” The claimants are entitled for a total
3 * compensation of Rs.2,25,000/ ~ as against
Rs.1,50,000/– awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
6% pm. on the enhanced compensation of Rs.7’5,000/~
&
from the date of claim petition till the date of
realisation.
9. The Insurance Company is directe.d_l44’_tg;:)”h’
additional compensation together
two months from the date thisl4~.._ K
judgment.
10. Out of the enzhariced–eoinfiensation~Rs;h0,000/- is
ordered to be investedin List claimant who
is rnotherof. ind nationalised or
schedufgell .3 years and remaining
compe’I’gsai;ilon’: lis”_””ordered to be released in
favour of Ciain1anVtsv«irI—equal proportion.
V orderlasto costs.
Sd/-
Judge