Loading...

Mangalamma W/O Late Ningappa vs S T Devaraju S/O Tirumalaiah on 11 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mangalamma W/O Late Ningappa vs S T Devaraju S/O Tirumalaiah on 11 November, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1 1m DAY OF NOVEMBER,' 2010
BEFORE   

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE E.sREENwA$E  _  

Miscellaneous First Appeal I\TTd." 96381-4 of;  
Between    . V'  

1.

Mangalamma,
W/0. Late Ningappa, –

Aged about 40 y.tf:;.ars.,AT””‘

2. N. Rachappa, . ‘V
S / 0. Late» .Ninga,ppa_[f
Aged ab:-ut1’22 iyeagrsf ____ H

3. N. Mah_ai’d_é\}appEi;’-E’i’.’j ‘ —
S/9 Lafeflingappa, ‘
Aged’ Eabqut years. _

4. Puttaxriingfi V ~.

S / 0. Late”R_aChappa’,;_ ”

Aged. about 62 years. *

f V’ ~£\11′ 21T:e :1′-‘{‘y’0vI:A.T1«\/Iutt2vi”1TéA1«I’1al1i Village,
Pufa :I:{db.1_i, MalaVa11iTaluk,
‘ dya. DiVst1fict:

Appellants

‘A ‘ ” ‘ : ‘{B.sz ESrr.1t: Bhushani Kumar, Adv.)

Devaraju,

S / 0. Tirumalaiah.

Maj or in age,

R/ at. Shivapura, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.

2. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co., Ltd., ‘
Ramaswamy Circle,

Mysore.

Rep. by its Manager.

i .;r;vRespgn;ae.;:s..

[By Sri. R. Rajagopalan’;-..Adv.A’for

R. I- notice dispensed ‘witil v/o . 20 10)

This MFA is fi1¢e:i._ U,-‘S,.1″”73{1_}”‘«of Mv Act against
the judgment 8: aWa1d.”d’ated; 1_7″/G4./2.008 passed in
MVC No.42} /2006 orr_the..Vfile of the Cilvii Judge (Sr.Dn.)
& MACT, Maiaxzalln a11o.win’g~.,d”_the’ claim petition for

compensation tseekjng ” “enhancement
corI1Pen55>%V;’tioft1.V”=-*1′ ‘- ” ‘

This ap’peaiV.'(‘;ornrrfi:g onfor Searing, this day, the

Court, delivered .the’v.fo11oxvirig:”‘ – _ —

the claimants seeking

enhancement.do-fppcofripensation.

‘;_pFor the sake of convenience parties are referred to

.A_t11:ey.are’A_«referred to in the claim petition.

V , _ 3. V’ ‘Brief facts of the case are:

%’

That on 17.11.2005 when the deceased Ningappa
was going to Muttanahalli on his bicycle along his

friends, near Saragur water tank on ,l”Pl:oorga1i–

Beiakavadi road a milk canter bearing

No.KA–11-D–8181 came from’Ble’1aliay,ad:i’ ,%i_;:iei:17a lfe.sh?’.,_ it

and negligent manner an4d..”dashed.”,l, ,tagaii1″St”» the
deceased, as a result, he “down and”id.ied.°onVVthe spot.
His wife. two :Aan_d.”1notherl”filed a claim

petition before compensation

Of ?-12s50i0}Q:b’/’, ,€1¢’_C1”; ri-bnnal has awarded

comperiswatiitnighof/Qgwith interest at 6% p.a.

4. was aged about 40 years at

the ti1ne..of dellath in the accident as evident from

EX P 4- and Inquest report Ex. P 3.

V the wife of the deceased is shown as 38 years

A in the. claim petition. In her cross–examination she has

A stated that her deceased husband was 30 years old and

it was 26 years at the time of their marriage.

Therefore the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of

the deceased between 50 and 55 years at the time of his

‘8’

death. The claimants in support of their contention that
the deceased was earning ?.5,000/- pm. by doing

sericulture except examining the wife of the.yd.ee.eased

as PW 1 have not placed any document

income. Considering the age..of the

years, year of accident as

agriculturist the Tribunalfhas rightly: ‘-._assdessed his’?

income at $3,000/–V .p,m. iieivclaimants ‘a1*e~Wife, major

sons and mother of iandvdddtherefore 1/ 3rd of

his income. has’_vtol_be:. d.edL1c’tej_d,VVtorvards his personal

to the age group of

the =13.””Aceor’ding1y loss of dependency
worksddoutirto ‘%.3’;.l2;O’Q’O/i (13,000/– x 2/3x 12 x 13)

‘itis a\§’va.rdVed as against ?’.2,64,000/- awarded by

it A the

€’.d’1a.5;_O0O/- and $16,000/– awarded by the

Tribunaltewards loss of consortium and transportation

AA of body and funeral expenses respectively are just

proper they do not require enhancement. ?.5,000/-

.–Fawarded by the Tribunal towards love and affection is

%.

..€’I1’T;KlV..l£:l’:\’3’Cl_’V”fOI’ a ‘total compensation of ?.3,68,000/- as
awarded by the Tribunal with

.at:l6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation of

on the lower side and it is enhanced by another
€5,000/– and I award 310,000/~ and .–SE.gnflarly

$5,000/~ awarded by the Tribunal V. of

estate is enhanced by another

?.l5,000/- under the same.

6. Thus the claimants entit1e__d for ‘follo”\}ving ” 0 it
compensation: _ _

1) Towards iossldr degiegrdedcyl r ‘.3,12,000/-

ii) Towards loss._of_co_n:3ort’ium. 0″: 15,000/ –
ii] Towards loss ot”V.loVe”&_-affeC=’tion i’. l0,000/-

iii) Tow-drdes t1″anspor_tatio’io of’
‘f1_1″nei*a1 ‘

–V..Vex.p;g:nses I . ?. 16,000/~
liv}iL’oss ‘estate 3’. l5,000/-

0 _ Te. 3.68.000]-

7- A.aPl5lé3l”‘is’lal1owed in part. The

judgmelnt i.”_’_of the Tribunal is modified to

.sltatedl:l:1ereinaboVe. The claimants are

{gage

$63,000/– from the date of claim petition till the date of

realisation.

8. The Insurance Company is
enhanced compensation
months from the date of rece;j;f)t*~
judgment. Out of the eniiainced “‘7’5’;%
proportionate interest is Vord:ered–~..to be” ‘invested in the
name of the first the deceased in
any xtiost office for a
period of to renew the same

from time toiviiiwflithdraw interest
periodically with interest is
ordered to be re’1ie’as_ec1 in of the claimants 1 and
a1-*e’i’vv,iid”e and “rnother of the deceased in equal
2 it

No order, as cost.

fidiz’?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information