'#1
Cfiflecked kftcbt
c:}r\aum\3e3\ C>'6Ch!\
ck': ' E91. 1:'o<2'
"EH
' CSNS3)
Eusmé
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT BHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3' my 09* SEPTEMBER__i3G08 .. _
PRESENT _ V V
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTI{}E = _
AND " "
THE HONBLE M;2.JUs'Hc:'EE S.SA'1'YANA§2AYANA
MFA,.No.384~5ig"m;§_Q\_m
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSIIRANCE ma-.,
BELGAUM D0. = -. ' ~ '
THROUGH rrs REG!.§3NAL_OFFiCE
NO. 144, SU_B1£ARP.MCOMP'!,EX,
M.G._ROAD,"i'3ANGA'E,ORE-560 00:,
REL'. 1'3'2.1*1's ASST. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
- s§{;"s.13-.aHQMBAL'; ~ ..... .. -
..APPELLAN'I'
ARE):
.. ':31\}IT. GANGAWWA, MAJOR,
W] O RAi'd§APPA BADIGER,
SMT. SAKUBAI, MAJOR,
W / O FAKIRAPPA BADIGER,
3. KUMAR RAMAPPA,
D/O F'AKlRAP¥'A BADIGER,
REP. BY HIS MOTHER 8; NATURAL
GUARDIAN RESPONDEN'I'- I.
4. KUM.GEE'I'A, MAJOR,
D/O FAKIRAPPA BADIGER,
REP. BY HIS MCYPI-{ER 8: NATURAL
GUARDIAN RESPONDENT-1.
ALL ARE R] O IBEAIVIHONGAL,
TALUKISAUNDATTI, DISTEELGAUM.
5. F’AK1RAPPA,MAJOR,
s/0 BEERAPPA BANDR{)L{.§,
R/O HALGATTI,
TALUKRAMDURG, DIS1″:BELGAUM, ‘ ._
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING ..
N0.KA.24[H~71} ‘–
THIS MFA IS FILEE U18 173(1) OFMV ACT ..AGAINS’Ef THE
Jt}DGMEN’1′ AND AWARD DATED 1.35.2004, PAssED_u~1v: MVC
No.2s21/02 on THE FILE _0E ‘§’HE _MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,
SAUNDATPI, AWARDING c0EaPEIEsA3ri’9N~.;QFE –_RS.4,19,000/~
WITH IN’I’ERES’I’ AT 6% RA. AND D1RE-cm§G.?HE_.APPELEANr
HEREINTO DEPOSITTHE SAME.
TH1S’AP§>EAL HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ANITLCOMING ON-FOR FRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, EAWEEARAYAEA aj..; DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
f ~_2n<i &VféEpondent~Insurance Co111paI1y's
the judgment and award dated
j ;3.3.%2o4Epasséd in MVC 910.2821/2002 an the file of
% ‘ 1* i 4A’;’*.«_Vtxi'<i'.it;i11§.a.iw–3i\’:}!A(3’I’, Saundatti.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the
V petifion was filed by mother, wife and children of
“”4
” ”
one Fakirapa Badigerfl who died due to the injuries
suffered in an accident on 29.11.2002. It is the ease of
the claimants that on 29.11.2002,
Fak1’rappa was returmn’ g from Mudenur
Lokapur—Ramdurg road riding H_()’I’1d$3V:” 1»
bearing No.KA.24.H.0071 be1oI1.gi__I1g_zt’o
The said vehicle met S fleas
Bakekundaragi =d ue tome injuries
sustained in the accic1en’t:._ 1′ case of the
claimants 2′ agictfltnzist by
income was Rs.60,000/ ~ per
month’1 = claim petition seeking
she owner and the insurer of the
» ‘*-cycle seeking compensation in a sum of
with interest at 12% per anmlm
at Salmdanzi.
” 3; The ‘I’ribuna1 issued notiw to the
‘fesfiondents. The respondents entered appearance
their counsel and filed objections. On the
basis of the pleadings issues were framed, evidence was
‘”1
1289 (DB) wherein it is held that Section 163–Aofp the
M.V.Act provides awarding of
structural formula basis, if in the event ereje
injury is caused due to the ne§ligenee_ of
himself, the claim arising out of
maintainable. The principles down eetmeeeeeon Ad
is negatived by the the case
of DEEPAL (.}IRISHB_Iji:AIVV –vs—-
UNITED INQHK reported in 204
ACJ 934: Visn’re’r§1dered by three Judges
Bencizof Court and in View of the
princip1e’s.__1aid the aforesaid judgment of the
_ A’ the ground urged in this appeal
‘ notvmaintajnable and that the claimants herein are
‘eniit1ed.V ‘ the c1aJm’ petition under Section
1653-AV”‘Vthe M.V. Act to seek compensation for the
VA * of the deceased. In fact, the ratio enunciated in
tenet aforesaid Deepal Girishbhai Soni’s ease is foliowed
‘ by the Division Bench of this Court in UNITED INDIA
‘*1
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS —-vs- ANITHA AND
OTHERS (ILR 2007 KAR 28).
6. In View of the 1% decision Etow
supra, there is no merit in the K
respondent-Insurance Company”; ‘gs — «
is concemcd. Since the _appéIl,§ 11t L’
challenged the quantum of by V
the Tribunal, it will ._fi3 i§it.t11e appeal is not
maintainable the
sdI–
Judge
%%%%%% & Salli
Judge
TL. K
