High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Kempegowda @ Kemparaju vs M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd on 26 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Kempegowda @ Kemparaju vs M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd on 26 August, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
' ;  GOWDA)

IN THE HIGH cwm or KARHATAKA AT  % x
mm}: 'nus THE 26th my 02? AUGUST. 2'2§:10j;    '      Q '   .

BEFGRE

um HOIWBLE 1«1R...rUs11cr.: B.s1m£NxvAsE%GQwDA\k;j&L4¢A, L "  %

M.F'.A.N0.7121/*.21§(i8 (mask  

1.

” ammmwmaowmg V’
sfomm Hucmxam *
AGE]Z§ABOI.¥T€i§G’Si’IE§.8a.%=;_’ i –

2. vrmz & %
s;oK£1@EGQm’mg?+ % – V –

AeEnA3am_e¢rEA?f3

3. mmm % L A %
1;) ommmawna =
A 1:13 Anemia =

V no.2 3 fxm mncms
= ‘~REP£i_Ei3E;?H’I°E.D BY m*:–“;mR

xzmamm

AT JAKKUR vmaasnma mm

L A.A9pAmmBU1u’>mme. 3.9.2031)

fiAHC}hLORE-6&0 M1

2. CHAHI}RA%. W] O RA..IA.HHA
NAHDIKREA
JAYANRLQARA
RE

(BY 3122 v pvammmpnmx FOR R1 122 3331333; ~ = ,

MFA 111.213 U13 173(1) oF_¢Hv”‘;§t:*s:,
Jummmrr Am) AWARD DATED zo;:);a.2aoaL PAa8£D 1E?iKVC ‘

mzmssa/zoo? on THE ms 01:’ mnrmgm fgxtmcw,
COURT OF SHALL GAUSE8, §El$ER, Mfis£3T-4, BANGALORE,
SOC-H-4, PARTLY ALLOWI1’K3f 1; BETYIIOH FOR
COLEPEHSATION AND 8EE§H.’HG’.*” OF

ms m=m% émf HEARING
mm DAY, ms GOUi{_r.33ELIVE§i’$b– :§*aL1.owmG:~

Thb app-$1.. far eahanoement of

of ‘ , the paras’ are

TV _ tfimg rafwred to in the claim” petition before

i

” ‘lbs brieffacts ofthe case:

24.03.2001, when the deems: Haw-athm was

safianding on thc side; of thc road on Ba1ga]ore-

GE”

Doddaballapura road, near Slnedexmpura gate, driver ¢f_tl*xe

mini bus bearing ruafitrufinn Na. RA-18-C–7€)OD

resuhz, am was thrown an the road V

ran om her head and she died L
husband and two zrninar 05% V

the MACT, Bamalore. pf R§§8.0¢,000[ -.
Tm Tribunal awarded them a; m.4,m,ooo;–

4. Ac death of the
awed in and liability of
the insurer of the only point that arises

. oampmaon awarded by the
“and mamnable or done it call for

_ ‘ hearing the learned counsel a.ppean:g’ for
and pausing the judgment and award of the

I am ofthe viawthat the eompenaatian aura:-vied by

&.

theTrib11na1ismtjuata.mreaaor1ab1e.it’m ontbelawv;-frpme
andwmcaitisraqun-ad’ mbeenhanced. H .’

5. The ma ocfthe demand is a 26 =

ration card and 39 yeast in the post

sf his death in the accident. The

the port mo:-tm rcport mama be The
claimant: are her __children. The
claimmms in support of “Vfidemaed was
wnrldng as % working an an
agriculturknt ms: iw§i+ per month,
name exmméga as PW-1 md pmduced Ewe
eertificatn. examined the author of the
gain arm deceased. ‘l’hezefrm:, the
her income at Ra..3,G00/-r pm.

and fiaerefiznre 113*’ at the income of

V decemfled ha cbductnd 1nwm’¢ her personal expenses.

to hair age map is 1’7.’I’I1erefiam, the

‘ dependency’ wcrka out fio m.4,es,ooo;-
ma R is awarded as mama: I-h.3,60,0£}O}–

Tribunal.

%’

7. Furthcr, it 53 just and proper to arusmrd a

Ra.10.000/- mw.az-:h has of oawsaortzitxm’. _

ms of kwe and macfisn’, as.1o,ooo/-

and m.1£},0G0/- fiowatw ‘uammrmtign

funeral expames’ md it B

maniac: by the Txfinunal mwa;-as

3. Thus, we cummw:% thc fallowing

compema.tion:~ . A ‘ _ V _

a) Lona of ‘.9 Ra.4,08,900
la) Luna ofc::nsr2;’h’?i13?J+V ‘ .. §m.10,G00
:3) Loss of ‘- $30,000
cl] Loan of}esta%t;e’~r,_. « I
£3) Ibmapdztaticn af cB~a.d»h_¢’dy”

-. —————————— ——

Aheappealiaallowcdinpart. ‘lbs

‘ paw by the Tribunal is znod1fied’ m
. above. The claims-ma am entitled far

:4 tion of Rs.4,58,000[- as mm’ 1;

awarded by the ‘I’ribunal with inte.1-est at 6%

:ip.a.:. .’on the enhanofi mmpenaatitm of Ra..5B,{3G0/- fimn the

ciataa 91’ claim petition till the data of reakation.

W