& myshra; cmamheaua P Pulil, Advocaln)
V 1 The Branch Manager
-:l:-
IN Iflfi fllfifl COURT OF QAEEATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23"' DAY OF MAY L %
BEFORE: %
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST 1 % %%
BETWEEN:
5895
R/'c-uB§a;mapu'r "
Taluieand ',tK<_:'ppal,
; New resfizlizig '81 C30 Iuyavva
3 wxjo 'ivladiwalat,
" Hotel,
' " V Circle
% % APPELLANT
United India Insurance Company Limited
P.B.No.7S, Lazmi Bazaar,
2
% xvsm of Vehicles Act against the gnaw and award
'dstbe!:_(}!j'('i8i2{X}6 passed in we no. 5212092 on the me ofthe
"'Ad:il. cem (Sr.Dn) &. Add}. MACT, Gadag, partly
H V' . enhance" szfneniof compensation.
_ " 4_ Miscullanwus Final 15% coming on Ibr having
' gran day, fine Com delivered the following: ~
Dhummi Complex
Chit1'adurga--577 501.
2 A Mahantesh
S/0 Adiveppa
Age: Major _ '
000: Owner Of Tempo _ __ V
bearing its _
Reg.No.Kn-0l--M-4484, '"
Taiuk Hiriyur, ' " ~ , _
3 Sml.Lalilav_va
W/o _
a:1dI*E1'§ot:s~?Lho1ti;'.. .
"
'3£'a1uq"and .
(By Sim" uM,U for Respundcnfi No.1)
shrj. code "I€agaraja'-, Advocate for R-3,R-2 dispensed
~ Miscisiianiatxaxs First Appeal is filed under Section
al'iQvi?ing_ .t'i'zé_ Aélaim petition for componsanb n & mm' g
$5
JUDG&T
Heard the Cmmsel for the uppel and «
the respondeni.
2. The fimls as are Jxgluvmgi---§:§fr"L!h6 appeal
that motor accident
invulving which, a claim was use
for H "i{f'jg was
emgioyed as a vehicle (Bulldozer).
The Tribunal wmg ..w.H.a;..g has Edam [he
i.n-mgij *'~'a,¥.,3is.SV§}-"per dayamd W "W , E9353'
Further in awarding the
25% of 113:: amount in favour of
in flavour of tin: widow of the driver.
2 lhewiow befun: this Court challenging the
uf the income of the dweasui and to
g
apportion higher amount of compensation in fiiveafsi'
appellant.
3. The Counsel fur the Wnmiwwm gm
d% was admittedly mvow; if; §vhi1a
opcraling a bulldozer who
0f :1 bulkitnzégfiv lhemfom wuuid be
earning """ 1" _ The
Tribunal has unnpiemxy this aspect of the mum-
a:1d__hcnLw:_£§h& smo;1::'i.. .;.,;np¢nsaaun would have to be
_lhal the: inunmc of the (1% was
he wcmld paint out lint since. the aqapellanl 'm
4:$hc £§;*ould now receive and being class-I rm, lhe Tribunai was
juslified in making unequal dislzibuiion of 25:75 in flavour
g
of the appellant llfld the thin! respondent would submit that then: is no justifisatigm K
unequal apportionment mt! that he
be div1ded’ equally in thvourV’u.ti’i;§1e t t;? ‘third
L
submit um % lion am the ram
that the was no evidence of
the to operate a bulldozm. In
such 91 nnpunsatk m on the basis that the
aw téami:§g%Rs.so;– per day and themfims the claim
V .1 xsis ‘not justifiul. The insurer not having
award by itself would not entitle the appellant to
the 11% was a driver of n Mllécmsr, in the
of any evidence mu! hence there is no case Rx
Hmhuncement.
3
6. Insulin’ as the nppmlionmwa of _
compensalicm is concmned, lhc for ‘*
submitmmhehasmatyinwemutifi. A’ 1 ‘V ‘ V
7.11″: Counsel ram hand
would submii lhal imam k% is ennoemed,
having is aged and nu ma
its discmlion has awmdud a
Inge; the third reaptmdcmt. ms is
{incl am they both are am- I knit:
. regard In the relalive age of the claimants.
‘ H the Counsel would submit that Emu is no warrant
on the ground ofappnwtionmmt.
6
T X mi}./55% in favour or the thin! rcspumdeli
9. Itmofar as the appuafiunment is M
claimants both are class-} heirs, tho I-iitaeiéi ”
Ac: the Tribunal was juslified in
lowanis the widow and icsscrmeaam: lfie~-
However, lhc a 25°x6;.ig;
and 75% in favour of the [tin]
juslified. 1: would be mgr of
bakmw 65% in ra:«o¢£or£u«; %
Tzmam-. ,.:»…4;w;.;;., hohlug that line
a ‘”:$:.i_ compemaliun of
and apporfimud at 35% in sum or
Judge