High Court Karnataka High Court

N Munivenkata Reddy vs The Managing Director K S R T C Kolar … on 12 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
N Munivenkata Reddy vs The Managing Director K S R T C Kolar … on 12 February, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda & N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY or % 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE m2..ms'r1cE tr.Gom1.,A  -   

AND L
TI-IE HON'BLE    
MISC.FIR.ST  na;3:?3§i2oo?(hw%%;j

BETWEEN:

1.

S / olate Naraiyfiflfi _ V_ V .. ‘

2. 1-: ‘ ‘
W/0.M11it;iVbEi_ ”

Mulbagal ??3it1k
K01?-If Dist} 1 A. “”” …Appel}an¥:s

‘ V z§{};’1fs§arayana Raddy, Adv.)

1. ‘The Director
‘ ~ 5 1 ‘ ~ KSRTC £41913}: Division
% Kssfiygpot

Kc:-,1ar_I}ist. 563 101.

I vi~§;?i__§?a}endra Prasad

u ” ‘S / o.Jaya1’ama Raddy

A ” ‘ ~ R] a. Yarraganahalli Village

KGF
Kolar Di-st.563 101.

3. M/ slnternal Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Kolar Divisiem

KGF Depot

Attached ta the KSRTC

K.H.Roaci

Shanthi Naagar H _’ ~
Bangalore. ..Re_spondefit§V. 4′

(By Sri K.S.Bhara1:h Kumar, ‘Adv§.f1″c.2r R1, e
Sri N.Pavam:handra Shetty, Adv}~–for R2}; . A ‘
This Miscfiirst Appeal is”fi}eé under See.1’}?j3(1) of
MV Act against the Judgnetit. Award.” dated
26.11.2005 passed i11’1$?1″*JC _NoV.14;_2Q€)2 on the file of
the Pr1.Civi1 Judge (Sr{Dn.~} ‘ma; c1M_and CJM and
MACT, Kelar, partly a11Qwing._ the””‘~ciai.:;3 petition for
compensation egam erfizzancement of
compensation,?_’V ” ” =i ” .
This MEAT. _C4L)I11iJi’11g4.O1Ylx.’fDi3″AOI’€i6I’S this day, Anand,

J. , cielivered fciiigzwiiagzé. A

‘ «. 1 AV

Aecepfiiig stated in the application,

“d.eiay:e_:ef ..daye’is”eei1don.ed. I.A.I/{)7 is alliowed.

._ __ iej”e]ajmant’s appeal for enhancement of

V .com;§énsa!{.io£i.; We have hearci the iearned counsel for

and we have been taken through the recorcig,

19/

3. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of

VA «emtcident. He was not married. He was working as

Secretary in Co~perative Society besides he was doing

A _ a

sa/-

5. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.25,0{)0/– under eonventional heads which A’

inadequate. Therefore, we enhance the

Rs.4{),O{)G/-. Thus, the claimants: ‘W::-14116–‘_4¥§§§: éiifitiéd4.’_jto’._ ”

total compensation of Rs.5,08,GGO;}’.g. A’ 3

5. In View of the abové’,’–1;t§e.»apA1.§ea}h’is.
part. The impugmcei’ The
comgaensation of Rs.2,5’§,OI){) Tribunal
is enhanced, enhanced

compensaficfii 6% fimn the date of

the peti1;ion– realisation exciuding the

interest of} occurred in filing this

Judge

aéii

Euéfifi

V’ :S k]’hfi§18209–