_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2OD§fl,E,
BEFORE 3 'é . u
THE HON'ELE MR.JUsTIcE_s.AEDU;"NAEEER',E_
M.F.A.NO.4735/2OO6jIN§)' V' 'V
BETWEEN: '
L R M VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE MALLAsHETTAPPA*f' VA
AGED ABOUT 52 xRS"_' " "=V
D/O LATE.NAELAsHETTAPRA°f5_ "
AGED ABOUT 44 IRS _' E._' "w*
2 R G SWARNALATHAIw,'
EOTH'ARE,REsIDING£§t'=*
AT SHIVA OANEsH,'_' _w_
NEAR STATE EANK GE MYSORE,
sIRA:ROAD=f;E _',,w."
TUNROR - 572 IOI '~.= ... APPELLANTS
(By SRI N SRINIVAS, ADV.)
V 'AANI5:
L'L={ V NAOARAJO
'*5/O.vENRAIAGIRIsHETT
F_NO ITO, MAOADI ROAD, RAMAKSHI PALYA,
SANGALORE
'*,Z'=_THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
'u__REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
BO NO.89, II" CROSS
SAMPIGE ROAD,
HANGALORE--56O O03 ... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV FOR R2)
THIS MFA ES FILED U/S 173(1) OF MVQ_ACT
AGAINSE’ TEE JUDGMENE’ AND AWARD DATED:Ol/Q6{2QQS
PASSED IN MVC NO.l24S/1998 ON THE FILE –OF;VTHE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) 0 ADDL. MACE, T0MKbF,}V
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM FETITION= FOR_’
COMPENSATION 0 SEEKING_Ia_ENHANCENENT*pt OF ”
COMPENSATION .
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS TRIS BAX, TEE»”
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Though this matter is fioeted for Ordersf
by the Coneeflt Qf the learned Counsel for the
parties, _Afil:i5 utakdfi,:fi? ifor final hearing,
heardl and dd;apOs§fifWQf.fby this judgment and
award.
21E lhis appeal is directed. against the
l”‘jad_gem-eht_ and award dated 01.06.2005 in MVC
NO;””114.«._5/1»9″98 On the file Of the Addl. Civil
hu’ Judge TSr.Dn) & Addl. MACT, Tumkur (for short
lg Tthe: Tribunal’). The appellants were the
‘””Claimants. The first respondent was the Owner
in
……..3_
of the offending vehicle and the second
respondent was its insurer.
3. They appellants filedu the .aforesaid
claim petition seeking compensation on.account_
of the death of their daughter aged about 12h
years in the accident occurred on U8;Os.1998.
The respondents haye: entered Eeppearance and
filed their objections fig fihe plaim petition.
On the basis at the glegdings of the parties,
the Tribunal has framed relevant issues. The
Tribunal. has dheldixfihat the driver of the
offendingfl “vehicle*i owned by the first
h% respondent herein is responsible for the
5paccidentt”4dyThere. is no challenge to the
liability 55 the second respondent– insurance
V company; to pay the compensation. Learned
” counsel for ‘the appellants contends that the
.”«iU compensation awarded is on the lower side. It
is argued that the deceased was aged about 12
years at the time (H? the accident. Having
ilo
w 4 _
,_J
regard ta the decision of thfs Court i;’s,s:na
Ulla and. another /vs./ .A.R.Sfiiv§sh3nkaffi an§
Others – 11.12 2008 KAR 1896,. _t;qe”I”3:’:.mna:1.”.;;:;:;:.c;’m;’=–. ‘
to have awarded compenSatiofi;§f R5{2,2EgUOQ/«.
On the other hand; ,thé niéafined céghsel
:4’:
_L_L’_'{
appearing for the respondent Sougfi&jtfi.ju5
the impugned jufiqmfint and éwafid} _ f
a
Q. It ig”fiQ:fli§’dis§ute”tnat.the deceased
child was aqéd_abQut 12 $6335 at the time of
5..
(Z)
I 31
1
th& acc1aent.V The Cla;mants are ti parents
,,n.
{1}
%
E.
51>
3″?
.0,
<1?
C2-
of the sa:<§':,r:%:r-,,i3";ii_.".. Tribunal ha-
vccmpenaation of ?s.l,50,000f~ with interest at
the r3ta' of* 6% p.a. from ihe date of
1
applicatidnftiil the date of the award. The
Pqyex c1$u;:t.’_:ri’VMANJU IEVI as Amrgm vs. HUSAFIR
f 5′ ANOTHZEER — 2005 Law 9.9, was
‘kxcdnsidéring a similar case bf grant Qf
Cfififiénsation for the death cf ea boy aged 13
vyears in 23 mete: vehicle accident. The Rpex
Cour; granted compensation in a sum of
{A
r’
–+-