High Court Karnataka High Court

The General Manager Ksrtc vs Shivalingamma on 12 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The General Manager Ksrtc vs Shivalingamma on 12 February, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda & N.Ananda
II? THE HIGH COIIRT OF KARKATAKA AT 

DATED THIS '1':-m 12m DAY or FEBRUARX.-« u

PR%ENT

THE 1-::oN'nLE nm..ms'r1c1=;     

THE HoN*3LE nm.JUsi}:eE H.m¢A§:oA;E M 
mscrmsw  

BETWEEN: H
The Genera}       
KSRTC (No'e1?*'I~3'iE(KE%';FC.')  V"   ' '

K.H.Road, Bapga£9I'e"56Q'TAG_27"  }
Rep. by ,fl1<:*:. {Lfhief  Ofiicer  
N.W.K.R.T._C, E~Ii._:VI::_Ij;".VA   _ _' ...Appe1lant

 .gB;,:_  Sherifi', Aév.)

  ..... 

Chfikkeerappa

.V
13/ 6. Cijikkeérappa

” 3, Mangélamma
” H ,/plate Chikkcerappa.

” H13/0.1ate Chikkeerappa

M31′ ralidhara

S /caiate Chiktkeerappa
Minor rep. by his natural mather
The 18′ respondent herein

v{\_” , ‘1-«l7″~»”~ .

All are residents of
Msranagere Gellarahatti
Sira Tqluk, Tumkur Dist. ..Respondents

(By Sri Manjunath, Adv.)

This Misc.F’irst Appeal is filed under. tse~.e-1.7eé;(1g t

MV Act against the Judgme11t””‘a;2c:1 dated
20.1.2006 passed in MVC No.35O3_/99-Aogiv the’ f1Ie- of
Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Addl.MAC’F;.__ Sim, awaiflingz.
compensation of i~K’S.3, 18,000 with-.iI1’terest 5% 1_:i.a.
from the sate of petition till payment. ‘

This MFA eon:1ing”~o_rz ‘clay,”hnand,
J., delivered the followitzgi”-j-_’
ll l l ”

Aeceptieg the application,

delay of’1561ds§rs.is}:r.;<:endt§nse;"i'.'s.'£}06 is allowed.

2. by the Corporation for

V redtlegtien. of We have heard the learned

parties and we have been taken through

ffhellfdeeeased was aged 50years at the time of

:e:ecicierlt=~* he was doing sheep business besides

-_t1o_lng””agriculture. The Tribunal, having regard to the

VT ” age and occupation of the deceased has determined the

V U montifly income at Rs.3,000/- and adopted multiplier

appropriate to the age of deceased. The Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.3{),O00/-

conventional heads.

4. On consideration of matter,”~ Wt

compensation awazded by thc is ndt._VexcesS%§fen%V

Therefore, we do not find
the impugned thfé is
dismissed. The appellgfil-t’ the award
amount Withizg Ito enable the

clam’ ants té statutory deposit

\\\

sdié.

]uc3.<Je

shall

Sfili

Eiéiw