DHARMAPURZ DISTRICF
‘i’AM§LNA[}U RESPON
(BY SR1 S.G.PANDIT»AD”‘e” FOR R2 as 3);*~~—- I ”
M.F’.A is filed under Se~:etia:r1e°14e* If
against the Judgment: and Aivmfl “dt.29f 1./V2O0%?«.pas$ed ‘
by the MACT, Bangalore 3:; MV’/Q_ No.40V8r%-1.2900;
This M.F.A cammgeguferor heareifigjhvbeftgrewwthe cam:
this day, ¥.1})O1’l;_. heari11g,*.._m1and, …I_ éelivereci the
fe11owing:- ‘ _ ..
exi er
company. We
have msurance company and
leaxrled Llaimants. We have been taken
through t;1é’;fé’:?c;1~zi:%s_, 4′ V
n *2, The””‘ieamed counsei fer insurance comgany
T. ‘V Vie1e§:;»–..:&eei;$e1;ded that the accident occurred when the
A metefeyeie ciriven by the deceased dashed against the .
_ ? pertien of parked lorry. As the road near the place
V ” -. Qfi accident is sufficientiy Wide, the deceased could have
averteci the accident by swerving his vehicle to his right
side. Therefere, the Tribunal shouid have heicl that the
éeeeased was either absolutely or partially negligent for
the cause of the accident. The learned counsel further
ks
5
9. In the case on hand, the deceased was
maintaixling not oniy the parents but also hjieyounger
brother. Considenleg the fact that he as
three dependents, it is not possi_1)1e ‘~-fio fifie
contention of the insurance; cenjépeny of
50% of the income towards ;)e’rsoz1a.1.v”exwi1se§s”‘e.f”the
deceased is proper. Therefei”e3_tl1e”s11}jnfissig3n of learned
counsel for the itieiieanufie g:eif;1pa$i3iis rejected.
10. Even if the
is on the higher pasonal
expenses of deeeaeeci “of Rs. 13,080 / –
awarded unde” VeenvVefi:’1er:afllV would efi’ set the
differenee; find any grounds ‘:0
interfere ; “award.
gs Vdieefiesed. The amount in deposit
e shaeéxgeemsnnueeigtgefnabunas
Sdf-
Iudge
Sd/~
Judge
MP