S Umesh vs Veerabhadra Naik on 1 April, 2008

    By Sfi'T.A.K , Advocaiae)

-1-

IN THE HIGH coum or MRNATAKA  *  
mrreo THIS THE15'   
me HON'BLE Mmu5s'%ifiIcE«%'5A§3Ez@'F5HAflnfaafieouom
M.F.A. 

hetweeu:

1. S.Um::3}£z~..__    
S/oififiethaizimaiaggh , 

 -   

R/at.Nn_..No.D’~1,”

Univemiaq/_’ bf
Science Q1;w\_I’t€;rs.’–

hmbbal ‘

13.’v..

. VJ_joVU21ie_sh.;S§
‘Aged about 40 years
R} at.=.No.’Pib. 13- 1,
Uniircfifiity of Agricultural
” AA Quartcrs
_ Hebbal
.. Appellants

AND:

1. Veerabhadra Nail:

S/0 Krifihna Nails:

Aged 46 years
KPFCL, Mudifl Post
Chikxnagalur District.

2. The Executive: Engin¢:é:.’__
KFFCL (REE) 1- ”

Chikmagalur.

3. The. Director,   V    .
Karnataka   _V  " 

Insuranc;:”Di*:1):§i?tn’-;cnt._V—..__ ‘é ‘
Motor Brasgcitx ” ‘ _ ._
VishveswaJ*a%ah’*i?9wer.

Dr.fi..mbedk&i._–.V’_4j:edhi– . é ‘ .

Bangalore-1. ‘ ‘ .. Rmapontiems

.. érins Ap;ieea3..V§§ raga under Section 173 (.1) of M0191′ Vehicles

V’ “vAct”v.a:’gaii1st”~-the jzxdgfiiént and award dated 20.9.2006, passed in

MVC-_.NQ.392l.1f{‘}3 on the file of V1 Addl.S(.’J. Member, MACT,

Causes, Mctrnpofitan Area, Bangaiore {SCCI-P2),

” claim’ pctifion for compensation’ and scckmg’
enhgancejncn of compensation.

‘E’hiS Appeal coming on for heafmg this day. the Ocmrt

” H ” 1 4.” ‘ = . ‘iie=.l§.s{ercd””thc fofiowing :

i§I_2.§..H.§.£.I
This Appeal is filed by the claimants praying for

V mtxiificatiuln 0f the operative portion. of the jI1(i%I;t and awani

pamaed by the ‘l’1ib’m1aI below Ielatixxg in giant of interest.

V7

.3-

2. Heard the lcameti advocaics appearing

parties and perustad the matacrial on vretxyni,

3. ‘Though the ‘i’1’iI:m1:a1 justiiicé
Rs.’2,.OG,O()()/- compensation, wiut”i:;.:*.i§t;1;c:1″¢:sf m; t’i1:§ {if 7’%. fbr
the death of a child. agLi:i”‘aboliiw$_ was justified ‘m

awaxtling in.tcIt:st {mm the of evidenm till

deposit in the i}”tiEtfu}:1a1. ;1._’l’1’gta:fié is.«r;i'()!'(i to Sh0W that

the on the pmoeedings.

from VV’£3ZV:{%e;;i:”tI1e«’}’iiisi§11ai has not stated auythm’ g
in the of’ : ‘gas. to whether the conduct of the

claimants E523 (icLage£i~.V pmcxeetiings. in me absence of any

V’ ‘l’r:ibunaJ should have: awarded interest

. §h23., t13;itfi:”‘of petition tiii the date of deposit. Acooldingky,

of the impugned judgment anti award needs

to ..niad£V:vwiti1 regard to interest: oniy. Hclme. the iblkming

A »d1:tie1f is magic :

The judgment and ward dated 20″‘ September 2006,
passed by that: MAUI’, Bangalore, in MVC.No.:§921/K133, with

regard to awaniing of oom;:nansatio11 of Rs.2,t)(),()(.)0]- is

5/”