1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11"' DAY OF AUGUST. ms .; .
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 4
M13951 ,1.ANE0U§ F1353' AVEPEfi>§.E,_11\:i:.*:.A"'?'36"7"{.).AF 2(X)6--. (M_TV3_
BETWEEN :
The Branch Manager _ _
The New India Assurancé ' if; " '
Company " ' V
Divisiona1'DOfi3€-6 V1"?-. --
Udhakaaxnandaisg-In .(_(3my)_ - -- I
Tamil Nadu, Nave?
by its Regii1nalM&:mige:".. '
New India A'r:su'ran¢e V' "
Limixtedfl
" Regiénmoflice, '
: 2 ~ Bu-ilgiin.g,'
' P...Kaii!i5ga l'x1a0.I-{road
Bangalure%5:\*-$11027 APPELLANT
(By44"Shr;iv;..A. Krishnaswamy, Advocate)
%% jg. K. T. Muralidhar, 37 ywm
S/D Lam Thimmegowda
2. Smt. V. R. Bhagyamma, Major
W/o K. T. Mumlidhar
@
Both Residing at
Srinivasa Nilaya
Kikkeri Road, K. R. Pei
Town, Mandy.-21 Distdct
3. S. Rahim, 41 ycam
Sic) Syed Mohammad
No. 49, Sun Mari Sit!
Sunmck huusc
Udhakamandalam (Ooty) _
Tamil Nadu State " '
4. H. Shivakumar, Majq:
S/0 Hanumanthaiah '
M/s. s:.;...:....1.... .?§ge1¥:§$i'Es... V1'
No. 1.46:,jcMc::.1ar:c¢:..
11d1;akamandazm{oe;y;..
Tamimaau - % RESPONDENTS
(By SIIIL -. Advocate for Respondent No, I,
Respézmdeuts Nas. 2 and 3 are Served and Shri. M. N.
V’ _I\d!£’.fiiI.I$.iidhi5l’z!, Advbcaié for Respondent No. 4)
***II*
‘- First Appeal is filed under Sectitm
173(1) ef~ AMotor Vehicles Act against the judgement and
award. dated 30.1 E2005 passed in MVC. No. 793/2000 an the file
V. ._ “oAf the Member, Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
= _ awarding, a compensation of Rs.2,2S,(}00/- with
.’ intersst @ 6% 33.3.. fiom the: date of petition ti}! deposit.
This Appeal coming on for beating {his day, the Couri
% delivered the following-
@
6
may have resulted in the amount of compensation being sealed
duwn subslantialiy. It is contended that the the
deceased was a tailor by profession even if the
his father as an assistant even Lfiuring his sehen! Gays, the ;
deceased was capable of £1)
of his fizther. Hence, adiiptioiiiixf Rsil nutioniel
income of the was onwtixe 1′ fiewer side.” The evidence
would aisu indicate that in school and
:TheiVivieissi_tuiiies of life apart, the adoption
of ilefiniiely on the luwer side. The
contention that”‘e.veni of the said income one-third ought to be
personal expenditure of the deceased is a
be seriously urged, fer, even if the
to» be made applicable, having regard to the {hut
ii * thevthe Tnbenal has adapted the minimum amount, the excess,
eecurding to the appellant, which has been granted is not really
arbitrary and therelbre, the Tribunal net having proceeded to
deduct the expenses of the ‘ sed, which he never incurred in
the firs: place, would nut be at uunlcnliun that sqfiarl ‘.
urged. Accordingly, there is no gruursti’ ; 2
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be mm§!.iéd»lu =lrii3a.ui:_1l benefit
ufthc cIaimanls–res;x3!idi:Ix_L$. * .: