High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Gowramma W/O Late R Ramaiah vs Manager M/S Rajiv Travels on 27 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma W/O Late R Ramaiah vs Manager M/S Rajiv Travels on 27 October, 2010
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
 _ (SR1 BASAVARAJ 'I'J_f.:  ADV.)

INT}H3HKHiCOURT(H*KARNHDMQXHTBANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2;": DAY OF OCTOBER 2o1o4...%'A»._ *._V_

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sAIYANA12;AAQéLNA.:::   "

M.F.A.NO.11722/200€$.(MV~:SJT§  '" " %
BEYIVVEEN:   '

1.SNHKKNNRMWMA
'WVOI$HEI{IUflMMAH
AGEDABOUT45YEM%3
OCCLAGRKXHJURE',3

2. RJYOTHI A H
D/0 LATE   _  - 
AGTED ABOUT  YEARS     A 
occ:  'A ' "   .

BOTHvAR,E  OF
GUDr)ADANAEpRA1A;<Em.D _
HOSADURGA 'I*A;:-,I;K._  _ 
NOW RESIDENT 0E'VB1kNK.COLONY
CH1TRADU_RGA."_ V 

 ' » * ...APPELLANTS

AAA%A_N.;9;

M/s,RA.Jrv,m_AvELs

V . OWNER or BUS BEARING
  =REG.No.,_KA-34/6565, NO.2--A
" {;.s.AR.c0MPLEx, K.C.ROAD

  

 {siau B.S.MURALI, ADV.)

.HRESPONDENT

3'**""1



THIS MFA FILED U/S 21"73(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01/O8/O6 PASSED
IN MVC. NOJ415/04 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.} AND ADDL. MACT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM I3'E'I'I'I'ION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS EAE,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This is claimants appeal Seeking” «enhancefrient

compensation awarded for the Vdeatl”Oi’._ol’–.5§agade_eSha2

motor accident, which took place 3.7.2004 j’oooo£’ 9.Oo
p.m. The fact that deceasedJagadeeS:l1af’who vvlas-rieziijng the

motor cycle bearing hit by lorry

bearing /OBEESOST Office, Beliary, as a result

Said Jagadeeslla died nOot..ccinV.diSpute.

– A’ Thereafter, l1MiS”On1other and Sister have filed claim

See.l§i1T§~.clompenSation in a Sum of _Rs.5,00,000/ –.

The Oc–o_urt_.belojwOOafter recording evidence, on appreciation of

oral” documentary evidence available on record has

Oawardéil compensation to the claimants in a Sum of

‘WT

Rs.2,12,200/- with interest at 6% ;).a., from the date of

petition till date of realisation.

3. On reappreciation of the facts and T’

documentary evidence available on this i.s”of

the opinion that the compensation aweirded i’

just and reasonable and does novticall for’–eni1ai1=ceinent in

this appeal.

4. Aecordingigg the 2 elaimants is

dismissed.

Sdf-

Iudge