” ‘-“”-” ‘— –1’-H-‘-vruvfi nu:-rl uuuna Ur :\.J-\i(E\lI-ERIKA HIGH COUR’
the Ciaimants, deceased was the 0:11}: ea1*11i11g–A4″331a1i:T1:>€i’1″~{$i?’–T ‘
their family arld was agriculturist having ..'{;f{‘i’§V}V”3€f’1:””€i€S._V u
and was also doing business
Forest Department throug1:1′ _ “::?§1ctor – ézad r L’
Rs.1Q,{)O0/» per month.
3. The AMACT evidence
{:11 it-ztonti, 01} that tha accidant
was due tog of the rider of the
motor cgyclff Since: the vehicie was
1::-zyvered fine “file liability’ has been fastexmci
on the. ins2.1f’t::?_,V the income Gf the deefzamcl at
” V. “‘–R&s.$–;.§G€)’;5~ per the AEVIACT awarded a total
=’.fI#f RS.3,{}0, 160/ ~, ‘£0WEi1’£ZiS lass cf dzapfisnciancy,
meziiéal fixpttfgléfis, loss of exp€<:t:a.ncy3 loss of estate, 1033 of
"v.,'<:ons0rtiii1:1 and also towards funeral expanses iagethar with
.,ff'8%Li'n_.:emst. Not being satisfied with the said awarti, me
' cigaimants 11.63,, wifi: anal chiidren. cf L.Rs. of tbs cieceased
u Gurunath are before this Court in this appeal.
JP'
. ………… V. zu-mnmunnn nsurrs L.uu1u.- pr IEAKNATAKA H!GH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HSGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR'
S1"i.Fi.V.P€adagouda, Iteamed r:i?(311I1S€} "fife 2%.;
re5;p0I1cient~Insu.ra11Ce Company, is §::_c:<£. :0: 'iiiffv
within fzmr weeks from taday. V
. /..
.... " Judge