Loading...

National Insruance Co Ltd vs Shakuntala on 27 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
National Insruance Co Ltd vs Shakuntala on 27 January, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE SIGN COURT 0? KRRNATAKR.AT BRNGRLQRE

EATED THES THE 2?"'DAX OF JANUARY 29e§¢f3

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. Juswzca K sggfiaaégaaag, a 

AND.._
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTEC§R$}N,S§§Y$NARAEANA
MmLfi;g$gé®gqQ_

BETWEEN

NATIONAL Imaaufixcg CQ.gL?a"~A'$»-N§
ARYA sAMAJ.RoA§;w:* __1gz »-3.
opp MUN1cIPALFMARKET'u}.'._; 2
KAROL BA§H;»xEWgpBL§IV11§.Q05;
R/BE ITS axxasgkfi" "" '""
'. . 'v w"« . APPELLANT

{By sri;_G_MAHESH;:fiEY§"

*-W; . 'SM? SABKU§T'i£"

_ W/G SGDHAKARA §0oJAR¥
"~.32_Y3ARs~.

-_ Rf§ ERRED? VILLAGE,
.'~EARAB$ POST
a_UQU§: $ALaK D.K.

"*= *2 fiasfga PRAMQQH

'*«_5fQ 3uDHAKARA PGGJARY

'MINaR,19 YEARS

"Rik HARADY vI;LAGE,
HARADY pas?

wavy: TALUK 0.x.

RXBY MGTHER SAHKUNTALA

\
c>/

V}

 



2
3 MASTER PRAJWAL
SXO SUDHAKARA POGJARY
7 YEARS, MINOR
R/A HARADY VELLAGE,

HARADY POST
UDUPI TAL§K D.K. ,~w-
R/BY MOTHER SAHKURTALA

4 SMT.3ALAJA
W/O GOPALA POOJARY
57 YEARS
R/A HARADY VILLAGE,
HARADY 903?  '_
UDUPI TALUK D.H,f

5 M/S sac RQRDWAYSW{REGB)u
No.21/245;;,BAs?1,"; 4'.V, ,
puwsaazflwfposafimaaa" ",'-"-W»
ROAD,*DELHIp110j0O?, x'wv

5 VIJAYAEKfiMfiR_SAG.RAM«DASS
MA30R"~3. %*  -.%  
H;NO,340fTSP"NAGARg'
BELTALL sUHAT1;."=
ASSAM - ' "*'."

"u RESPONDENTS

-*._ gay syi: A A$fiflBmSfiETTY, ADV., FGR R~1 TO 4 )

THES ,&EA IS FILED 3/s 173(1) OF Mv ACT

AG3ixsTa_THE_ JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.12.02

PASSED IN MVC*§O.641/96 0N THE FILE 0? THE ADDL.
CITE CIVIL sunsa (SR.DN) AND AQDL. MACT, UD§?I,
PARTL¥.f AfiLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR

COMPEMSATION.

x’*.:HIs APPEAL COMING am FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

; 3R£Efifl3R R80 J} DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

4

of the dependents. The total loss of depenfleney

would be R3.3.6O.OOO/” (Rs.2ooo(in§5méyge7¢ee

12(months)’ x l5{multiplier). Tee *wife. le”

entitled to Rs.25,000/- fl t§Qa;&g’fnl§ssxe”§fl

consortium. The petitioners . together: °afe ti

entitled to Rs.25,eoa/afi*.to§arag«f¥l$;§W of
e$?@ctanCY and Rs¢§0,C0§/td’#tQwatfle”‘”funeral
expenses. In all, the §e§itl§5§:§’;re entitled
to Rs.4,2o,opo3~_ ag”W§g%ln§tf;3§}3;in,500/– with

interest at~§%_§;aL”@ye§ded5b§ the Tribunal.

Ont lthenn efifianéefi cenfiengation, interest
payable _iS, at ‘€%ltpefmlennum from the date of

Qetition tlll’payment§>i

“”fhe” “.T€ibunel has awaréed lessor

ltompensatldnfa Hence, the appeal for reductlen of

the gempensation does net arise. Accordingly,

Vnpggeil is dismissed.

Eefigg

Salfw

E
TL_ Eeege

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