High Court Karnataka High Court

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Rajesh Roy on 1 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Rajesh Roy on 1 September, 2010
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
IN TI-{E HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGMQRE

mama ms 'THE 1-: my OF SEPTEMCBER 

BEFG-RE

Tim HGNBLE Mmmsnczzs L._RARAYI1l'{5  V  k

BE"1'W'Efl

HEW mnmassmzmcn an ;:..m 
REP BY I3EI&}'TYl£AKAGI§R'~~._ 
amazes man,  % %
nmcgamxm-sewn?
%    %    ...PE'I1'm)HER
fiYSBI;RJAIF9_._A.K;§5.B',£4i}V;}_' 4_  '- 

mum..."

1.

R8?’ _ .V
em. 2

AGES 3:;

K K€1BIPPaTI’TI’HC?¥3’E3jE _ ‘
AD¥)OOLR_VVIIJ.&.€§E,gl£&HGAI.ORE ZEKLUK

, ‘2. .. &4mV’1′”:3*t3%fiEI.§v my

‘=AG1w 1’§E.()U’I’ 53

3; . ‘ ROY

‘*-‘;:;rs1Em§.r-.§o;j*£’41 mm

M _ 4. me: JAc;é33AEEsHA 1201′

AcgE’n_ABaUT 33 mm

a V’ ‘ ” * Sm mmm mm!

= ,_£§l?3KB ABGUT36 mfi

£§LLA.RE RIATMEADKA RABUMARE
BsLLIm.:I,aAmwAn

RWPGHBENKS

(BY 8%. P ,ADV. FOR Cffi 2, R5
R1 DISPEITSED WITH, R3 & R4 EELE fifififi)

\

n.r.a.. lg. §?3z&9:”

‘ram mm ya man we 273(1) cu? am Mr mama’: mg
mam? AND AWARD mmn: 25.21.2933 mssxn ntfimvc
E0. 16?-4/2993 an ‘mm FILE 0? ms 11 A..nnL.BIs*T§I:,5fff£T.”3:a

mar-m, 1:.x., wmzamas, awmmm commiéfififixa.
RS.7,31,060[- wrm nrmnmr AT 5% 1>..4. mm ‘my –«

AP’I”ELLAfi”1″HERE1I%’ ‘E3 DEPOSIT THE . §?

mm msemmxnoss Ffl§S’I’ :tL’fiii§£f.it.?.~.GIin
Emma -rms am’, my cz3=;ry:’s*m2;;.1s:mz:vc1:: » ‘

Thin apfil E ~ Ixmuraxwe
Caxnpany award dated
}g;’%’n¥’3t’§67;4[2€3(}3 an the file

afthae 55592’-m, mz. Maw;-e.

2. jud and awani, tm

ccsmpenaation of Ra..?’,2’1,00flf-

6316 per ammrn fiaom tlm date of petition

” “The learned aoumel fer the appellant –
submimd that, the Tribunal cnmuxitted an

T in rmpect csf quantum and mbilixy. It is aubmitmd

that,t1’ne’1″r’ihunalhaatakeninca’3mofthedmsedat

Rs.6,0<}9/ – p.m., which is on Ifighm' aide. The claimanm

K

have mt produced any materiah in support ofthe

insmmae. The death was mt caused

aecident. The aecidusnt amourred on 6/ 6)'
12.30 pun. wherma. the iqfired K V'

1?; 3*; 2003, this aapact has am ism; _

the Tribunal.

4, It is of
PWJ. when is the Win af in her
evidencfi as a zmelie, but
am her husband was
In mama gr calculation

of – pm. but the Tribunal

_ has 73 on higw side,

cauzmel for the chi t

i tbs: decmacl was mrnitg R3200 pm’

ixtuzxame of Rs.6,fl[– p.m.. Wham the

_ _ A ceclie in other stems where demam for
momm in Dalmhin Kazmada, Mangakare, mafia were
at R3200 per clay. It is fiutmr subrnitted that

PW13. aha deposed that died was wnrkirg as

‘<

agricultrural mafia, Hence, it is submitted to the
5&1. The doctnr whn has been iimd an

3 also deposed more the Tribunal 4_

causedbecauaaoftheaccident. "

6. I Imm heard

counsel for the appellant for the

raparflaant.

7. by me:

laarrmd mmag the judmm amt
award 1 Frem thsa evidenca at’
F’W.1, was «am:-king as a
¢x:0fi§.. % staiaad that how much

‘~,d$£”‘¢:a.:.#$& ‘: am ea the nafional 1’r1mme of me

at R3306 per day axfi on that

i meumc was amused at Rs.4-,500f-

No.1 is majar. Accardfixgly, 50% of

‘ V’ ant baa to be deductect Heme, the calculatinn

wcium be Rs.2,250}’- p.xn. x 3.2 X 9 m 1=es.2,43,ooo. The

*3 awarded towards ms at’ depmadeney.

Cxzampermatirm awarded towards mmaenfinnal heads it;

1

raclumd to Rs.50,00G1 – and the campcnaaticn awgrdad
azmther hwds is afirmeé. ‘

Ancurdirzgly, the appml is anowea m if: A { ,

Amum: in depcait be m’a.1<3.aii':tx,it1::é_t:3;"i:o:r 7M; f A~i

' _,ri,_iDkL"é§3!