INTHE}HGHCXNJWFOFKARNKDMQXATBANGALORE
gyms Ti-IIS THE 6TH may OF OCTOBER 2010
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE N.K.PA'1f11:?. "" ' ' *-
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1c1::i%.s'.';{EMPA:\ޤrA._
M.F.A.No.10146 OF 2006 (MW '
BETVVEEN:
Sri. Subhash .1\/I. Dhelme, ,
S / 0 Mallikarjun Dhekné}
Aged about 58 years, _ " -.
# 607, 7111 Main.._III Stage, :11 B.1or;,k;"y
Basaveshwararrggar, _, ' V
Banga10re--5E:O , ...Appe11ant
[Sri. Ve_t31j€1'1'dI{é£ ;-- Shetty
8: Sri:,'N.RajAa§sI1e1{i};f, Ad.j§70caté's]"'
AND:
........................_Z
1. S121. P.R'e:d._dappa,
'- S;/,0 P,Redda'n'i'1a,
Ag§:d4Ma_]or.
V _ T. ¥<e«sid'm_g*gt No.1-4-458.
" . Subh_as3;h'VRoad,
Madam alli,
C;'h1ttOr lstrlct,
"Afidhra Pradesh.
" Sr1.0.Rajanr1a,
A S/0 O.Dasanr1a,
Redoleganipalla,
H /0 Kotavanigalli,
Madanapalli,
Chittoor Dlstrmt,
Andhra Pradesh.
/'
H_M_»_V_NM_"_...
[Q
3. Manager,
United India Assurance _
Company Limited.
Madanapalli, ;
Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents' . A A ~
(By Sri. M.L.N.Reddy, Advocate for R6;
Notice to R-1 and R~2 dispensed with Vide
Order dated 19.04.2010] = ‘
3!=***
This MFA is filed unde_r”S,ectio’11 -‘Act
against the Judgment and award dat_ede-24.03.2006
passed in MVC No.288l/20.0.Qfon’-._.the fiie._oVf_x§the VII
Additional Judge, Memberl, VM’ot_or”~-Accident Claims
‘I’ribunal–3, Metropolit’ane*AAreVa,iv Bairigalore (SCCH«~3),
partly allowing the clairrypetition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of congipensatio-n2, ‘
Tvhisi’ “€o’iIl_i’r1’g A oir”–ft)r hearing this day,
N. K. PATIL, J. ,’ d’eV1.iyfered..otlie__ following.
* _ E N T
g’17h_is appeal’ is directed against the common
. dated 24.3.2006 passed in
‘six/’1l.v_.c.1$t¢i;2;gaa~Vi.}’2ooo on the file of the V11 Additional
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal~3,
Vlgivletrogoolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH–3), [‘Tribunal’ for
brevity), on the ground that, the compensation of
“‘§’L3l,45,l76/– awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
yé/.–~»»–~
6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date
of payment, is inadequate and requires enhancement.
2. The brief facts of the case are that,
The appellant is none other than V’
deceased Smt.Maya. On acc0unt:~of”th.e death’
in the road traffic accident that
at about 3.45 p.rn. near Do’ra””Chera\rn’on”v_:Palai*rIaner, it
Chittor Road, when Vshe was””tr’aveliing ifin”‘car”Vjbearing
registration No.KA. O2. 49 vu5fr’om: tiangalore towards
Thirupathi as registration
No.AP.’.21.fi’. [ its driver in rash and
negligent dashing against the car.
the 4agp’pe1lant”fiI_ed’the claim petition under Section 166
Vehicles Act claiming compensation of
–‘fi,”against the respondents. The appellant
further”‘-Vciairned that the deceased was aged about 56
years at the time of the accident. She was doing house
lholldiiwork and she was also working as one of the
wpartners in the Engineering Firm getting income of
Rs.7,000/– per rnont1’%
5 “”””‘/R
3. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel
on both sides and after considering the
documentary evidence availabie on record, .
claim petition in part and awarded com’pen_s.at’iwo1″iy
33,45,176/– with interest at 60/slippersanfizgmfr:-<;::gi.ul.;1i:ej
date of petition till the 'date of" ..Being = L'
dissatisfied with the qiianturn–dfvco'rnpensationA,.awarded
by the Tribunal, the appe_l'l~a'ri_t .'per:_e:se11_ted this appeal
on the groun_d.t;ha_t .co.mper1sa.tion awarded by
the Tribunal, disiiiadequate_andrequires enhancement.
the learned counsel for the
appellarn». and the le'arn'ed4'c'ounsel for respondent No.3 –
the insurer.
V perusal of the impugned common
award, we do not find any error or
materlaliirregularity as such committed by Tribunal in
u”Vl.AAawa:r’ding the compensation and it has awarded just and
__reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency
and other conventional heads including medical
expenses. Therefore. it does not call for any
interference. We do not find any merit in the appeal.
Therefore, we decline U) entertain the relief sought in
this appeal.
6. Far the fore gaming reasons, the;’_’é’p’;§es.}__V’:
dismissed as devoid of merits.
gs
Sd/-v
Judge
RSV/’>==” —