Manjula vs United India Insurance Co on 23 October, 2009

Between:

1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23313 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009
P R E S E N T

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.SREEDI-IARV

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'1'ICE B.SREENIV1§.:-¥S:Ev   

M.F.A.No.4274 of'20'04. my %  

Smt. Marljula, Aged a'.§_0'U»t_ 32flYvEda1'S»   
W/0. Late. D. Krishnappay   

Met. Arun, Agedijabouftd  E' - ._ '.
S/0. Late. D. KriS'hn--app_a, E. "  

Sri.  3]} 
Aged 'ab0'utf-77 yeeaysi. '
S /9. Late Veerar1:1a;«. 

_ -Smt. 
~ ' Aged about  years,

  V. Dayavappa.

O  RP': .  Shalini.
 Aged'eja1:§'0ut 2 years,

A  D__/0.vI;ate. D. Krishnappa.

;£Xpi)ei}ants 2 and 5 are Minors,

 O  Represented by their MNG C1a1'n1ant--1.
'  All are residing at Doddanalalia,

Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore -- Rural District.

49/



. _ Appellants
[By Sri. V. S. Prasad, Adv.)

And:

1. United India Insurance Co.,

Branch Office Code No.O70502,

No. 198, Manjunatha Complex,

II Floor, C.1VI.I-I. Road,   

[Near Double Road),    *
Indiranagar, Bangalore -- 560 038'.
Represented by its Manager,  ._   A . V '3
(Insurer of Scooter No.KA=~rQ3--ED_--_7'42'7.)   

2. Sri. K. Raju,
Major by age, ._ V, _  A .
S/o. Sri. Krishnappa,     
Koalathur,I-IoskoteTaluk,,  '
Banga1ore.,_Rura_1, District ' 

;;ofi3}fie:§?.::f s;a.:¢r..lNo.m;o3-ED-7427)

3. Sri. Beregowda.  A 
Major by age,  " 
. ' S/o. Sri, Mtinisamappa,
~  D_i1bbakur1te_...._.. .'
. V Doddarlalalla Post,
V.   T l'~ioSl5:'ote Taluk,
 j Bva'11ga.1:ore Rural District.
 (Rider of Scooter No. KA-O3-ED--7427)
 ' 2   Respondents

.. _. . (.By Sri’.”‘l\d. Arun Ponnappa, Adv. for R. 1,

A R3 Dispensed}

This MFA is filed U/s. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003

Cg’/.

passed in MVC No.3l02/2002, on the file of the V11 Addl.
Judge, Member, MACT43, Court of Small causes,
Bangalore, {SCCI-I-3) partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of comp.en~sat.i_on.

This appeal coming on for hearing:..lltl’iiS’-

K.SREEDHAR RAG. J., delivered the folloxyingt V

JUDGMfiNiyt¢dh

<3neI1 Knshnappa,agedzflfinfiffilyeafitrfiddiniav

motor vehicle accident. His children and

parents have filed compensation

and are in appeal oflcompensation.

The negligence of the

driver of v_el_’1icle and coverage of the
insurance ‘is nothing” di’s–p_ute. The deceased was working

as a1′;1’electrici”an.l’He was also doing sericulture work and

milk’ xfeindirag business. The claimants have produced

itthe’.Qertii;iA’cate:;”issued by the cooperative society for doing

V –V milli “iduslness which is marked at EX. P 15 and for

it ‘:’~,:dUi1’Jg sericulture work Ex. P 12 R O R is produced to

– the land holding. in View of the said material the

“income is assessed at Rs. 5,000/W p.m. As per

V

VII

rniriors majority.

unit system 1/ 591 is to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. If so Rs.4,000/– would be loss of deperidency.

The multiplier applicable is 16. Total loss

would be Rs.7,68,000/«« (Rs.4,0QQq;: 12px:’r1tsLj;et Iriiadditidii.

to this the wife is entitled for of

consortium, Rs.25,000/–

Rs.10,000/~ towards. expetteeet ati all the
Claimants are entitled compensation of
Rs.8,28,000/_~. with interest at
6% p.a. the date of deposit.

The be payable to the wife

and ‘deceased in equal share. T he

share” the V-.Vrrii’nors’V’sh’all be invested in ED. until the

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-t
JUDGE