K}? "NA:ms1rJt%1-r;1§":gIuRTHY
SINCE DEAQ BY ms
~ --« ' " . __ Lia) 3. K MAMATHA
' .w.iom,TE 32.1» NARASEMHAMUFYIY
A333 3,; YEARS
/'M POLICE QUARTERS,
: _ 'TUMKEJR DISTRICT
A " ~ ' 1(b}. KUM K as KAVYA
1;:/o LATE K13 NARASEMHAMURFHY
{N THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT "
DATED THIS THE 1316 DAY OF
PRESENT) _ " '
THE HOPPBLE MRJUSTIVCE "
A. . '_ 'A
THE H0N'BLE;._5§R.3u%L€2;i§E'N,_A;§ANDA
M.F.A. Nc;"169aL£2£}of" _
BETWEEN:
:. THE BRANC.H_MAfiVA»GER« _ V
UNITED INDIA IN§s:JR;=Lr;§:E"c:[., VREGIGNALA _OF'F'ICE,
NO 25 sH.AN§U'1fi'rANARAsAPPA
AGE!) 39 YEARS; -
KORATAGERE TOWN'
TUMK{§R" I)§S'TR1(ff"if '
- "4; THE 'ii>1i%2AszézqAL MA$iAGER
K_'I'i¥E'ORlEN'PAL._1P€SURANCE Co LTD,
~i/'f"«._J'UpGMEm"ANn AWARE) DA'l'ED:O5f()'7f2006 mgsgn EN MVC
' . N€).1'1"12/I998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN} 85
4 TA£;:BL_. _,5MAC'1', MADHUGIRI, AWAREHNG COMPENSATIGN OF'
._;Rs.-4,2';=',2z3/- WITH INTEREST @ 5% P.A. FROM THE DATE cm
V PETETION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION,
'' " "ANA1x:;:>A, .I., delivered the following:
AGED 14_YEARs
MINOR REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER }3.K MAMATHA
R',/AT 901,132 QUAZRTERS,
KORATAGERE TOWN TUMKUR Dzsmrcfij
us). KUM K N SINDU
13,10 LA'I'E KP NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED 10 1x2 YEARS _
MINOR REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
MUFHER B.K MAMATHA
R;'A'1' POLICE QUARTERS,
KORATAGERE TOWN TBMKUR DIv*.;"§'f'FEI{fI' "
23 SR1 RAJA MANIKYAM
sxo GR. LAKSHMANA
MAJOR _ :
R/AT SAN'THF:PE*I'E'~.__" g
MoNDALMADE'PQs'i'-L' '
PEENAGAR 'I'E%.LUE(---. V '-
DHARMAPURI I)IS'TE>;f§CT 'V
3. SR! vIr:ERANAg'3A.Pf>A.V _ «
8' /0 LA'i"'E M--'UDDARANGA,iA"££_ ---- '
MAJOR V -
R./AT DODDAPET, *
KORATAGERE"1'OWN
;;.._.c;s§:3A1)fr<=41e;xu_:§_j.. RESPONDENTS
{By'S§fi . K vj Nfif?.A§IMHAN FOR 1321-33
Mm. :«:rLED U/S :?3{1) 09 MV ACT AGAINST THE
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by the insurance 1 V’
aside: the award made by the Kibunal,
2. We have heart! icamed I-i’3,~{;;,.’hh””,«51’~x’.’ ‘
3. Sfi,M.U.Poonacha, ” the
appellant has made the
The pctitiongzfs hau§,;;dt* evidence
to prove that firhtgmsuit of injuries
sustaincdv awarded by the
trihlmal fig 01: _ * h
4. Wéhhhoticé thé~-._féhords that evidence §’vc:t1 by
PW-3 IfJr;M.11dci.i1i«:Ifi:S’h31a,’V’1vega1t1iz1g the cause of death has
h6t.hhéh has dcposad, as a result of the
the accident, deceased had developed
toxcmig am} was the cause of death. Therefore, we
‘jtject thé submission.
r compensation awarded by the tribunal, we
-fffindhémat the tribunal has awarded Rs.4,27,000/~ ‘under the
h A , foliowing heads: .;’\J,. -v~<i'T"/-(KM,
i) Loss of dependency and estate
1’21) Loss of consortium
iii) Funerai and obsequies {Rel ddrgoood, ”
iv) Medical expenses (during ueeeeeet A _ V
(25 medical bills as per Ex.P5) Rs.’-. A’ A 9,2
_ vv.,v$;¢;V,27}2 13,”
5. In the discussion 1j;1a&c.:S1;pr;i,._we lhaiée accepted the
finding of the efeeeih. we find from
the award medg ‘iiigg deceased was aged
about 30 cf cccident.
determ1n’ ed’-‘igcemed of ext Rs.3,000/– per month in
our epieien eeeenet er intexference. The tribune}
v.adopfing«W”ie6′ multiplier has» adopted ’17’
fmm the award, tribunal has awarded
,_Rs.– conventional heads Enetead of awauiing
Rs:.f$O,O0Ol5″Ain the light of the judgment cf the Supreme
‘V ‘ ‘ e K1 ‘A others}.
decision neported in AIR 1994 Sc: 1531 {in the
The General Manager, Keraia State Road Transpcrt
‘ fiiefiierafion, Tzivandmm Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and
Therefore the excess quantification of compensation
hr’ ‘ ~- P’~~~vC*”iL:,.e
The tzib 11113} has
by adopting 17 mulfiplier is offset by deficit *
awarcied under conventional heads.
We also set: from the records
had not obtained pcxmission fi:’5m.__§11c 1::’§”i:€:.11tc:$t.7£E}1cA
claim petition on the gmunds
6. In View of the I”1c:”merit in
the appeal. Accoxtjjngly, agpfiawl
The amounii by the tribunal for
payment.
Sdf-
Tudge
Sd[-
Tudge