High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivani K Shetty vs United India Insurance Co Ltd on 9 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shivani K Shetty vs United India Insurance Co Ltd on 9 January, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF 
BANGALORE   j V   .

DATED THIS THE 09" my 09 zéoé &  
BEFf?§E. ' ;  .;   *  "

THE HUMBLE MR. JUSTICE'

 

MISCELLANEOUS F1233; APP'i§_z~§,4'N();$36 OF
2%9asaxmL_ ' 

BETWEEN:

1.

Shjvargé 1
Wfo ‘late: 4M;jR_ag1}uzzam, ._ K
Aged abgiut ” ‘

2.
330 ‘late M§Raghux:;a’fl1,”
Aged about 36 é

“Vidhga ;~_s;,suy,

Sfo iate M.Ragi1tknafl1,

Agfid 34 yeam

r R.Shetty,

Six: 1a:eAM.Raghunat11,

.. Aged about 32 years,

‘~ residing atMoo1ur village,
” Post Uchila, Udupi taluk. …APPELlANTS

Z (By Sri.Kish0re Shetty, Adv.)

A311:

1, United India Insurance C0. Ltct,
WV’

Ram Bhavan Compelx,
Kodialbaii, Mangalore.

2. Lokanath Snvama,
Sfo late Vishwanath,
Kargathai, Ulia,
Permannur post,

Mangalore.

(By Sn’.M.Arun Ponaaappa Adv t’;>r.1Ei’i.)

5::

This MFA. v{s”=fi1ed’ unde:”,_S¢’ction 173(1) of M.V.Ac1′
against the judgment ‘%and’~a§.::a1d 30.11.05 passed in
M.V.C.No.38~4,/03 on .f1ic 0f th;e-.P1’E’;£3~iviI Judge(Sr.Dr2) &
Add}. MACT;1Jdupi, mrr3:1y4al’3awiiIg,the claim petition for
compensatiim enhancement’ of compensation.

This aéimissinn this day, the Court
delivered the fdi!.9wi,ng:-». ‘ ”

“, JUSGMENT

“This vi..§uby the claimants seeking for enhancetnent

gi’vQo1np¢.=;n3at1:i;fu1aV being net satisfied with the awazd passed by

:he;fk%ci;§41%%«%%«5adge (S:-.Dn.) & Adda. MACT, Udupi in MVC

%N§.3$4/03- W

2. According to the claimants, on 27.3.03

Raghunath-M.She1ty was proceeding in his

bearing No.KA 20 M 1773 fi’o1i1:Ud.a19i ttovgaras ‘4?i§’a1iigai{.~re: to

When he reached the petrol i

Templeon N.H.17 a goods eanie V

in a rash and negligefit ..ii1annef dashed tothe”iambassador –

car due to the impact fatal injuries and
succumbed to during treatment on
the next wife and children of the
The matter was contested.
The ‘Ii’i£”ib1ir1alV issues for consideration having

heiidiitiiat fliei’aeeident:was due to the negligence on the part of

i :V’th_e 4oVf~-the goods vehicle in question awarded a total sum

” Being not satisfied with the same, the

clieimiixitsiiere before this Court.

Heard.

A373