‘ °._ [}’:’5y:S1″i. D11,-IP KUMAR &. ASSCS FOR R1
1
IN ‘I’HI’:3 I{IC:E’I COURT OF’ KARN/\TA}'{A AT BANGALORE
Daied: This rhv 291.11 céay ofdamzzlry 2010
B E F0 R E
ms: HON’BLE MR JUS’}’IC}%3 V. JAGANNAf:>é}i}xN .
M.F.A. NO. 9994/2G88.{MV} ‘
BETWEEN: V
SR1 V UMESHA
s/0 VASUDEVMURT}–1Y
AGE:30 YRS, –
R/O GAN-ANGUR._\/;.¥LLAGV ”
K.SI’iE”E’I’IHAL1,YI–!Q.E3L1:._* _
sRIRANGAPATNA..fifALUK, ”
MANDYA.j£J:s’I’.;’ ‘ _ –
” ‘.’;;1..A;PI>I<:LA1,N'1'
{By Sn' iv}-'g:§3'.– AI;) V–. }
ANI")
1 s1\xfT«–;é Q31'-11A "
« 1w/0 SR!’ YOGARAJ
NO123. I”S’Eff§QE
BRINDAVAN E:x’r1~:Ns:oN
.MYSO_RE_
A ‘1_*ma:..I)’:y’1s:oNA1, IVIANAG 12:1-a
QR1;a:mA1, INSURANCE c0.1;mi)
CSI”i’HE1JAS CO;\/IPLEX.
‘~ SAYYAJI RAO ROAD
IVIYSORE3
RESPONIDENIS
SR1. A.E\/1. VENKA’I’ESI”i. ADV FOR R2 }
MFA FILED U/S 173[i] Of’ MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUE)C:MEI\§’I” AND AWARD £)[~\’I’E3I): 18.10.2007 Pf-XSSIFZI.)
IN MVC NO. 144/2006 ON “I’HE€ I*’Ei,FZ 01′ THE AI’i){fi)L.
2
CNN, JUIDGE {SR.l”)N). 1\r’lI.S,i\/IISISR. EVIACTI’.
S R! RAN GAPATl\lA. PAR’l’§…Y A.E,LOW I N G Tl IE C LAI M
Plr3’l’ITIOl\i FOR COE\/1P]E3i\iSA’I’]ON A.\lD sis:i;i:_iNo
EINHANC{*3MEN’I’ OF COMPENS/–Yl’l.ON.
THIS Aw-i:Ai, COMING ow FOR AI)_lVii’Sv§:lON:Ei’i–iAiS ”
DAY. THE COURT D 1:«:’,1,:_v{~:RI::1f> ‘ii-<'{E: 1i<'o'i;:,owi-:Nc:._;": = " _
._g_1_;_igoi\/1r::i-inf"-i.
With the consent. of for the
parties this appeal .lcu)t"~–.ffii-nlaiiily.
2. V’ vinij’ lqi.1esti()n the
(?()I’I11):f::.I1S{all’1011V’.l}1′.?vEI’I’vdVtfdlHl” lo him by the MACT.
Sri1’angap’a_i;nva on l’h€?=g~i’oL11’1(l that the income taker:
xvzié. on: loi;ve.r….s3ide and S(‘3C()I]Clly the multiplier
17 and not 16. Under other heads
alisté eiiliéuiocénieiii. is sought.
On. the other hand, learned (_’.()UI]S€l for
l”.i:li’e”Irisurance Company sL.ibn1iI’s ihai. the question of
‘ ‘”tal1i.
%
