IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT
GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 26% DAY OF A:;GiisT é'crj3-- _ X
PRESENT- j%%'~%..%_ E 1
THE HON'BLE MR. JIJSTICE %K;SREEpHm« RAQ?
THE HONBLE MR. keowm
AAAA A
%M.B*.'A,QRQB.,%NQ,15?/2003
Ix H.F.A. NO. 69L*?«-1--g2,....®..?e.§=.1:
NQRAT1oN,
S§§RIGE ".3Ai,)HANA",_
XGULBARGA.
4' %£s;§i :f1*s_MANAc§Iz>IG DIRECTOR.
{33Y.%_s:i:: sgamosn BIRADAR, ADV.,)
ALFPELLANT
u A $RI; R.Ag}A VASUDEV NAIR,
RAJA MADANGDPAL NAIR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SIDDAPURA,
SHORAPUR TALUK,
GULBARGA.
(33: SR1 B.M. KINIKER1, ADV. ,)
RESPONDENf1§""*~ I "
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) GF"'MV F?,CIf.AGAIN»ST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OATEO 337,012 3.PASSED_IN.., 5
MVC NO. 461/2000 ON THE FILE OE' THE PRO «DiST. '*.
JUDGE, GULBARGA, PARTLY VALLOWEIG Tma; OLAIM '
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
INa!.F.A.CROB.N0.157[20Q§;;;
BETWEEN:
RAJA VASUDEVA
S/O. MADANA
AGE:57 YEARs,j V A
R/O. SIDDAPUR, ' _
TQ:SURPUR, .
DIST: GULBARQA. "
OOOOO APPELLANT
(BY.sR I B..M. K£1~II;K£:_R1, ADVOCATE)
'E§Cif<TH EAST K" A PBIATAKA ROAD
-TIZANSPOI?F"43C?RPORATION,
OGEJNTRAL OFFEOE,
SARI(}EvSA'DHANA,
"»."C}UL.BA'£{GA.
Bwrs1»iANAO1NO DIRECTOR.
RESPONDENT
&.
MFA.CRoB FILED U/{). 41 R 22 CPC AGAINST THE
JUIDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.7.02 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 461/O0 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST. JUDGE,
GULBARGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION .aE*0R
COMPENSATION. u
These Miscellaneous First Appeals 0:1-i '
hearing this day, SREEDHAR RAO,J,<ie1ivt:r¢d t::1e 'f0l1]QWi'I1gf:.g 2
JUDGMENT
Sri BM. Kinikeri files power”V”fa:f’r¢sp€$r1dfé11.i for
cross–objector. Sri Santosij :« for
N.E.K.R.’I’.C. and for the; mspondaat
2. One 3é;adaiig opa1aIL%%Na:k,’his wife and childmn
while u’aveDh1g”i;1″Ma111_f1§i’ hit by N.E.K.R.’1′.C. bus,
as a result rgxf-the sa;n¢,”four inmates died. Raga I\4¥ad
<:I_…._.W.
compensation for the death
:_.._0f and two gand children.
V V’ _8. This to death of his son. It is stated
‘ Madangopal Naik is a contractor and a}so
ROE is not produced to prove the land
1 . Income tax i’€t1.1I’1’1S am: not produced to prave
The lands Wauid be intact even after the death. Only
supervisory services of the deceased for the
activities is to be taken into consideration to C0!_fIipu£d’. *
national income. in that view, the income oféthe deeeasedis V
assessed at Rs.5,000/– pm. The
legal heir, 50% is to be deducted
Rs.2,500/– would enure to ..V’t)enefEtVVVof The
petitioner is aged about 55 dependency
would be (months) 1;
1 1 (multipiieflj. for Rs.20,{)0O/–
towards 1oss:g of._ 10,000/– towards funeral
expenses. The for Rs.3,60,000/– as
agsidst Rs,%4,33,o¢o;. sgggmed by the Tribunal. The
is for interest. at 6% p.a. from the date of
‘ vpetition diiie cf ‘nayment.
‘ It contention of the a.ppe11ant~»N.E.K.R.”I’.C. that
Adcenmeutory negligence on the part of the deceased.
‘!»<§ee_pi;1g'gin view, the nature of injuries and the cause of
'V accidens, the negligent on the part of the deceased (driver of
ddttie ear) is to be assessed at 25% and the negligence on the
$/
part of N.E.K.R.'I'.C. is assessed at 75%. In that view, the
NEKRTC is liable to pay 75% of the compensation
compensation amount of Rs.2,7{),OO0/~– with interesg
p.a. fimn the date of petition till the date Qf.paym¢1fif~_'_~~ , 1: '
5. The appeal of the N.E.I{.R.T. C. is.au:;w=ed in
the appeal seeking enhancement Vi»S: ‘c!.i_s111is”‘,~:.eV:__<i.~
amount in deposit shall to the "_