High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Farida vs The Manager on 19 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Farida vs The Manager on 19 November, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
--  - .. « .4 _ Kasaba flgablali,
V' 4 "I-igssag; Tq." and District.

'V V  A»  "Mo&n:x'S1:1abeu1a that is H appeflemi.

1!! mm HIGH mum' or mnuxrum AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY 0? NOVEMBER, 2908
BEFORE

THE HOINPBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B_.Am  .[    "

M.F.A.NO.10457l2{)()3 (mew. é  H   
B EN: V? t

1.

Smt. Farida w/0. Late Abdul Shjakur
Aged about 35 years.

2. Shabana W/9. Late Ahd111.Shak;zr—— _
Aged about 32 years. ‘ 5 V V.

3. Hibbaji w; 0. Late Abdul Hameed
Aged about 86 ycarg. _ Y. A .

4. Nasia B31111 E)[q.~ -Abtiul V.

Aged about 2Q4.ye§2Ifij. ‘ ‘ =

5. Shel-teen Taj o–.f_
Aged abo_u.t…1.8_

5. Shahataj; Ba_r:11 nf}’,’.’g:)V….V_L’af.e .3. ‘an; –SI1akur
Aged abotiti; ‘

7. Mudasir Pasha An; 5; me A5c§:u1 Shakur
Aged ahqut 14″3rexax’s,

3. 4_ . _Jaka1t1}:a Sic). Late’A.bgiu1f:’§11akur

Ag¢d”ab01ifi:». 12 “”” ”

9. *sab1:;eha ‘B;;§i11r.1’-.l5ie:>. Late Abdul Shakur
Ag¢d.;.g;b¢uf;:”‘1 yéars.

All No.1 to 9 are the
.Resid.e§i2ta “of Shaukara Village,

No.6 to 8 am minors represented
“By their natural guardina {st appellant Farida
‘ ‘Ami the 9″” appellant minor represented by her

. . ..APPELLANTS

(By Sri. Girish B. Baladarc. Adv.)

1. The Manager,

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Darmapuri Branch,

Danznayuri, Tamilnadu
Represented by The Manager,
Nationai Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Manjflnatha Complex Buiiding,
Bus Stand Road, I-Iassan.

{O

Dorairaju S/0. R. S. Chinnaswaihy

Door No.273/ 1, 3″1 Main, ..

ND Pete, Bangalore-560 002. _ «_ ”

   RESPCENEDVENTS

(By Kum. pmétmw.    _
Sn'. 3. C. Rae,_A§iv.--'"fQr'

This M.F.A._.is/3,: ._1″7–.3(I)” emf’ M’! Act against the
judgment and dated’ passed ‘m MVC
130.323] 2005 o11_Vthé.fi1e’e;fAd:1i’fipna’1District Juége 6:. Mamba’,
MACT-H, Haésan,” 2. claim petition for
compensationfincl enhéméemcnt of mmpcnsation.

This app:-‘:a 1 this day, the Court
delivered the_fol10w’ingt’ _ ‘- ”

Rae, learned counsel is directed to

‘J= takc z${otit%§tVV«Ai'<:$i':'AVii:$1#{§1i£.1ent No.1. Notice to Icspondent No.2
V dc-Ifsent this appeal is heard.

A is an claimanfs aiapcal far enhancement of

‘fiezgjgfienégafion. Dcceascd Abdul Shakur died in a road :”~2»:::ident
V ‘ -93?’ the claimants filed a petition um:%a3;’ Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act. In suppagf, of their claim, claimant Nu-.1

Wife of the deeeaeeé was examined as PW1 and another witness

by name Babajan was examined as PW2. PW1 has stated
cieceased was owning 18 acres of 1am! and was ”
Rs.10,00()[– per month, however, the Tribunal fauna; ~ AL
is no evidence to hold that the deyeeésed ” ”

Rs.10,{)O0/–. The document pmciueed ei11_3re–_e.e}§:9xv»”v:} 1at;

deceased was having the lands, the the
the deceased at Rs.3,500/- a;3p’i3eEijg’i:’;e’ ‘muh€i.pfier
granted compensation of Rs.4,;i£},flf3Q {the loss “of
dependency and towards

the loss of estate, –Vtevzaiii$s v_fe’eexa1 expenses,

Rs.20,000 1- pf In all, the Tribunal

awarded Rs.4;i§0,(}0O]i3y_§?a}f’ef:Acampensation.

3. learned eflc>*a11V;§.se1V ‘eppeliants submitted that, the
ineeme of-Vietjiflie deceasedxet’*R$.’10,000/- should have been taken

by submitted that, the compensation is

e’–1_:at iove and afiecfien. He further submitted
and 2 are the wives, claimant No.3 is the

_ f N034 to 9 are the childxen. The Tribunal
consfidemeei the loss of love towards the minor

‘ ‘v–.e(:hi1r.:i;’en, mother and wives.

4. Leamed counsel appearing for the Insurance Company

Smt.Preet3.1i ‘1’. Komar submitted that the Tribunal without any

date of petition till the date of payment.

evidence has taken the ince-me at Rs.3,500/- and has

determined the compensation towards the loss of dependeneaq

and on other heads also the Tribunal has reasonably ,,

compensation. She further submitted that, the of V’

Tribunal dues not call for interference. .

5. There is no evidence to shove .fl’:i-*3. i11c:aj211’iV:_:2:. efA’th§;:

deceased was Rs.1G,000/~, only e§iiie1_ice_ {he
claimants is that, they have ‘gap: it be
disputed that the lands are _–.f.7_c:$i~vAA.’;;:’»1 1ijva#;1’oI1 and
there are several degefii-ziejats lands, his
contribution to the’ V. r:e.§eeiua1g13?”‘eecmpensated by the
Tribunal by (If the deceased at
R$.3,500/ ». I to interfere with the
said find:’ng,’hou;ever,’~ae: and affection is concerned,
“‘i.:)12;raIF.is loss of consortium, Admittedly,

theV”-:1eceased . ,§asi1éfi__ behind two wives, mother and minor

.._ehi1dIe:1*. my the compensation towards love and

7a’fl”ectio11 to Rs.E”>{},0()O[ -.

this modikation, the appeal is partly allowed.

H are entifled fer eempensation of Rs.4_,,9(),GOD] *

of Rs.4,6{),{)O0/ » with interest at the rate of 6% from the

Sri B.C.Sect1:1arama Rae, is permitted ta file Vakalath

within f(}1I£I’ weeks from today.