High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Gangappa S/O Hanumanthappa vs Sri T Jayachandra on 6 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Gangappa S/O Hanumanthappa vs Sri T Jayachandra on 6 March, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
A :(By sn- L@§A.i;aV:~:~NA, ADV. )

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated: This the am day of March 2009 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSi'IGE v.JAGANNA'I5}_§A:~;ATV.: 

M.F.A.No. 10151.1_20O6. {M Q  I %

BETWEEN:  _ K
1 SR; GANGAPPA '..=;}j_"{} HIQANLEIMANEVHAPPA
AGED 45 YEARS " *    " .

2 SR] MARANHA sir 'C§v'H1?§§iI}'M}\-NT'§iAl5§'A
AGED       

3 SR1 1iéAN:I_LtMéii-'rHAkéiAfAPPA"'s]'0
Ij§A.NUR1AN'F§~IAFPA  ~ 
.:AGEI3T'4e_YEARs_' 

4 Q21'SHEVAVNSAAS;(§"H;%NUMANTHAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS .-- 

_; 'ALL. ARE' R10' HQSAPALYA, SIRA TALUK
'  *1§1:_M:{UR Dl'S'F1'--32i'(":'I'.

 APPELLANTS

 :

 AA 1 zszvfii *1' JAYACHANDRA

V  AGE 60 YEARS
*  OWNER OF SEEDDESWARA BUS
THIMMANAHALLI
(ZN .HALLI TALUK

2 THE UNITED INDEA INSURANCE CO LTD

B.H.ROAD,
TUMKUR



3 P MANJUNATH
AGE 62 YEAR'S
OWNER OF' I-IANUMAN BUS

CNT-43049, SIRA '§'OW'N
TUMKUR DISTRICT.

4 THE UNITED INDIAINSURAf{CE::'CQ1'IITD   

B.H.RGAD A 
TUMKUR   I

  
(By Sn' B V RAMAKRI$HNA, Asv. FORa_R2 - ABISENT)
MFA FILED U/S §égc:I*'»».4.GAINSr THE
JUDGMENT AND. AWAI;>--§>..DA'1"I;;3;  PASSED
IN MVC NO.  01*; 'r}II';:':I«'I"L§' C)'§3'.'lTP§E CIVIL JUDGE
(SRJJN) AME)   $vi'.i§zA,{' PARTLY ALLOWING
THE _c:I_IAIIs;«IV..%:"'I>i3;+*IrjIf1f1c>jI\I._: '§?c;I§_IV_(§0MPENsATI0N AND
SEEKING _§:n'%' COMPENSATION.

'Fi?i'IS APPEAL'V.A'C§5Iv§:"fié ON FOR HEARING THIS
mag T;-IE CoL§R*r..DEL.:vERED THE FOLLOWING ;
' % *JnnGMENT

V      learned counsel for the appellants.

  for the 234 respondent and other

resp0E1%i<?11I$ though servad, have remained absent.

V' 2. The apwiiants were the claimants before

.,v_f%:"Ie txial cmirt and saught compensation for the death

of their mother {$43 road accident. Thf: tribunal

awarded Rs.1,08,000/- as compensation ané

quantum is calied in question as being on. th¢ '

side.

3. Learned counsel ‘for? ‘ ~ _ :7 :


submitted that the  
out of the income vtagen    the
income of the   taken at
Rs.3,000/-    1,500/- per
month  will have
  _    

 "    the above submission

Inadg the havi11g taken the income at

/”~. peI’V I3i1fii1f1} which is far too low, I am of

income should have been taken at

month and deducting 50%, since the

claimants were all major sons, the compensation

the head of loss af estate will be at

V% 1,8(),0O{)/– anti conventional amount given by the

t.ribur1a3 if addedgv then the amount becames

./C

4
Rs.1,98,000/-. Thus, the cempensation. gets

increased by R:-3.9O,{)GO;’ ~.

5. The ciaimants are entitled for .

enhanced amount of Rs.9Ci,0()Q[: but ‘V

interest in View of the order pa:$sed ti”:-isi”r,j<'f:'L1A1u*i; 'fo;;.'f'?1./.i

28. 1.2009 so far as the del£iy§:c1V’peIicci:_ is

Award is acco:’€:1_ii*1gly.’_’A is
allowed in thus, directed to

release the -the claimants in

equal pmpafii§é%!e

Sdl
Judge