IN THE men comm' ore' KARNATAKA AT Bx"£'£"~{_:€}111;«':';iVR';'3i?' '
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY C§F'A"NOVE'MBE}§";2¢;;€§$' 7
PRESEN"'I'. V A
THE HOINPBLE NIR.JU§';~.?'1.'§i3!E'.> I)1:§r::;>++3:<'3?I= iR'i§;:gi§;"'
THE H0N'BLE"'n§i§.::JLsfi§1f3fi:'é~i';_:é§égix¢ANNA
% Z¢L_F.1A;'NO.:S4§4"/2"i§0£T;
BETEEEN:
1
NAGARA'FHN.'£§s€MA ., _ "
W/0 'L21*I'E';§:£ANUr;:zANT'V "'ARA'i_APPA
25aYEM2_s * . .
R/ONO U51,' " _
1?'I'H~ {:1-'€088, vI_ MAW R-QAD,
NARASHEMHAIAH Co";mé#.3UN:),
PA£)ARAY;?;t3IAP[IRA
,E§ANG.ALORE'- V
" 3/'0 HANUMANPHRAYAPPA
m:A'Rs'MI~;<1<::R REP' av MOTHER
NAGAm;f;.'HIsaAMA
'R/0 I-If.) um,
1'*:*'rH Acreoss, : MAIN ROAD,
NARASHIMHAEAH COMPOUND,
.. , FADARAYANAPURA
V EBANGALORE
Bmevamxsami
D/O IATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
YEARS MINOR
REP BY MOTHER NAGARATHNAMA
R] O NO U 61, I
ITTH CROSS, I MMN ROAD,
NARA$H1MHAIAH COMPOUND,
7%
PADARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE
HANUMANFHAIAH 3
:70 LATE HANUMANTHRAYAPPA-¢
50 ms .
R/ONC)U61,
m'H (moss, 1 MAIN Rom;-'--._
NARASHIMHAIAH COMPOUND'; . _
PADARAYANAPURA -.
BANGALORE '
LAKSHMAMMA " ._ T '
M/<3 LATE HANUMAm"HP.§YAP?A._
45423 I ~
R/O no Ui61,;3"' _ _ .
17TH caofis, :-V-;v,_ ,
NARAS14flMi%§A.iAH CGMPCJUNEJV,
PaaA..R;AYA;1amRA
BANGALGREQ 2 APPELLANTS
{By Sm'/sin: E M :,AKs£{:»1A1A.fi;-..§z2v.;
AND:
RI:vANA$;--D2:>AzAH
. " ~S](}»fC'-HANNA BASAVMAH
. "«.,MflJC}3§".""'~.
R,tO'~v§ANAs(A'QI SOLUR
. "- §s/£A{3AiL'I_TALUK
3 BANGAMERE DISTRECT'
§;£,'..8""ursi:'15E£> rump. iNSURANCE co LTD
I FLQOR.
* *-JAYADEVA commax,
._ Biff ROAD
' "YUMKUR
'ii9y« Sn/Sm: .
~. A -3. mvxsmwxaa, A
JUDGMENT AND AWARD ¥3A'FE{):'2'7
RESPONDENWS}
BRAHMANANDA REDDY FOR R185 SR!
DV' FOR SR! H.C.LOE{ESHWAR§, ADV. FOR R~2}
iiflifi
THIS MFA IS FILED U/'S 173(1) OF' MV ACT IXGAINW THE
8.04 PASSED IN MVC
"V15
NOI14/02 ON THE FILE OF' THE PRL. CIVIL JUDQE"(SR,DN)"éAN'D 4
MAC'I'--I§1, BANGALORE RURAL DIS'i'., BANGALORE,' =. 'PAR"I'L".'._
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION CO1§{IPE}§S!§.TION_=AI'\7D
SEEKENG ENHANCEMENT OF' COMPENSATIGH. -1' '
'{'HiS APPEAL COMING on Févia"'z4EAR1Tr§c3.:'*I*i~i1s':';Safe,
DEEPAKVERMAJ,EDELNEREDTH'E_F'OLLCr'WiN§3:'
JUDGMENT
Sri Laxman, on behalf of
appellant. None-fqr alter service.
Sn’ ;§.%pp7%eax~ed on behalf of
2. *i’*:h1s Section 173 cf the Mom
Vehic1e$ Act,’ ,1_4988,V. award dated 2′? / 8/ 2004
_passed.. ______Bangalo:we Rural, whereby? and
Aix?i:c§1f(é”u11cie:;*’«.I%::xf«:i_eat!1 of Hanumantharayappa a total
V /- together with interest at 6% 13.9..
from the datgfir petition an it is acmany paid, has been
= % % 5
‘V V fin. ibwer side and deserves to be enhanced.
‘ M According to the appellants, amount awarded is
“E5
have been fastened on it. The details of
were asked for and to prove that r1t’iVer«1§?.é13
licence to drive tempo. Aeeerdieg ‘te it,
occurred solely” on account of i”a§E1 and of
the meter cycle by the afievvtheieefere, no
amount was liable to same was
excessive, exe:bi’£e§;t However, it
also filed cops? that on the relevant
date, the eas insured with it.
7. ..me pleadings of the parties,
Claims Wet; to frame issues. Issue No.1
” eegfigent drivting of tempo by its; driver
No.1 and insured with respondent
N0′?
eppefiants to prove rash and negligent driving of
by its driver, examined P.W.2/Rajagopal as an
_””eye”wimess. He categorically depesed that on 24/1/2001
4.45 p.111. he was going to Madanayakanahalli
Bus Stand and at that time, Hanumantharayappa, the
W
I’!
3
I’!
from the evidence available on record, ”
proved that accident had occurrfxd” “s9{eiy ‘
rash and negligent driving of tkio “itzsté
owned by respondent Nofll
No.2. Issue No.1 also in the
afiiimative in favour after properly
appmciating Jggridezgsé
10. estabiished that
accidentfifés rash and negligent
driving ‘owned by respondent No. 1
and ins:1rodL4″‘~Vw§it.h..’:respofident No.2. 11: is also not in
‘V t:’z’zrr1t”§:3. accident, deceased had sustained
V’i:1’jt;:if’i_és. _succumbed to the same in the
‘ V’ hospitol. of the Insurance Company to pay the
~ of ‘Compensation is also not in dispute. According
§¢%sae 5-‘Ppéflant, deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- p.111. by
vonding business arid runnizog a provision stores.
However, no document was flied by the appellants to show
that he was running a provision stores in the city. As
“$5
deducting I /31′” amount that he would have
himself, the dependency of the appellant V’
at Rs.2,000/– p.m. i.e., to say Rvs.2%£G%?)0′]~+
post mortem report, age of ~~eI*iown” V L’
as 33 years. Thus, :_ inI.:o” ‘consiélerefion,
appropriate multiplier would be ‘I5’
(i.e., 24,000/— 3 ,=%
I2. established that
for a period of ten
days 11¢ to the in_iuries suffered
by him, exaamamos hm” claimed Rs.’20,000/- in this
Whiehwe ‘f”i:id”‘Vjust and proper and would like to
age,;hea:¢1~ega;.; amount of Rs.20,000/-. Towarcls
va:£’io:;_e oonventional heads such as ‘loss to the
–. jv»-v’««.__e:3tat6′, ‘lo-:§s of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’,
VA company’, ‘transportation charges’, ‘funeral
’11’ ‘expenses’, ‘amount spent in performing last rites’, a sum
?¢r12s.5o,ooo/– is hereby awarded.
I-Vjlvaléitlsfed.
13. Thus, the total ameunt of compe11sé§;t::i011″T
to appellants by respondents
work out at Rs.4,38,000/-. _
14. In the light cf tnellfgmgoulglldiséussgofis, the
appeal is allowed in stands
modified to the extent holding
therein that ‘lo compensation
in all, a and severally fmm
the Vflamount would carry
irlterest: ga; of petition till the date it
is actugzlly Vl anmy paid would stand
to bear the cast of litigation
llrhmugh C<)unseI's fee is fixed at Rs.3,00()/~, if
" ''\':3'é:§:*t.:ii,fl@fi§ .' "
Sci/-3
Judcfé'
Sd/-E
Iudgg
'Elva