High Court Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Deveeramma on 2 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Deveeramma on 2 December, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan


EN THE”; HICEH {ff{}URT OF Kf~XRN2§”F’AKA AT BEKNGAEJQREZ
Dated; This the £2114 day sf December 2309
BEFORE

THE) HC)I~E’BL¥3 Ivii€i.JUS’}’I€Z:E V.§JA(§ANNA’_§.TfiA,?€’_’V:-‘~ : _

M.F.A;N’0.286G/2G0§3~~ $TTs5.\’\) H J ” 3 }« %

BETWEEN:

‘T’HE; FEEW INDEX ASSURAN3.?L’E2 .
:xz.:2240/4, £3’? FL.R, ‘ _ ”
CrIR”¥’AMfv’EA sHAMa:;Gowi:m C.€Iii”v’§PL””}§,’ ~«
Ct?-i{fRtZ”;i~«f ROAD, c.;g;a.NN..%xP5:?M.~.,_

BY ITS THE; DEWSEGEQAL cs_;?’:i:.CE.,*-._ .
THE NEW i’I’~§Diz~’x A3,s:3’1:2.g;;’»z::E; , :;:m§L

K R f~T5C1IAD,4_B1’%..i\EC+!§.LO¥€’i§;5§3{}..{}:j?2.’ ‘
REP BY ITS .;F}E’PUTY 2-:a.»=~.’M.<'::;..:§:;::.%; 'V

" APPELLANT

{Big Sri £3-B; }?';A.§'U_&' A§§*::T:3A§'e7's:.H.'AN M, ADV§~§.}

A?éEZ3~g V

V" 1: ; V. .i:Rz§¥'§ i;.;E:§<i:;§;RAMMA,

_ ":xg;e::§'L;a»3?.;E ';:~§;xR:YAPpA,
_1%aC+E.r;_..,§&:x;z§;;T 48 YEARS.

2, ""4–.$R3"'§{a,-@533,
S,1{3'~_LATE MARIYAPP§i.,

AA AGE?/D :XB§}U'i' 30 Ymxgfi

* §73€,}"i"H RES?i3§\§§EF~§T6 1 mg 2 mg;

'ma-T CHEKKAMALUR, aaamgapawag
BANGALCFRE RURAL D£STRi{f§1
B;%NGPsLGf~€,E":.

5, 3&1 M J B£}fvi§xfiE€§()WE}A,
zagzra J3%L.LE:GQWE)33.,
?é::3sX}”‘4, Di::§sAzwhaL:%;§;

7

CiH§5EN§’é£1Pf§TTN25i ‘T;”§I,l§I*§3
BANGALORE RURAL SESTRECTT,
B&§é{%ALO”RE.

{iEi’uy Sri M G SATEZESHA, FKDV. FOR R1 £35 2.}

REZSPLZI?~é’§f}’¥»7;_if§I:”i’?S -..

-“ms IS/’H5’1’~’i pznazs :; gs 1’2′:3»(i};-c;:irr~:~».e:t’~.i /5;£T5T:,.”:§i§}Ai§§S’§? «
THE JUDG}FjMEN’T AND AWAQEJ’—_ D;§;’i”EZ{) ‘=.;7~.

PASSED ax: amt: N'{).6:2[j2i)Q 5 (Tm;
Ai3§3i””E”1<3NAL <§:EViL JUDGE {S'¥i*!:}?*J.}, yifisxisgfis, ,
RAMANAGARAM, AaxrA;§§DIN<3;i."–;{"=c{22g&PE:N'sz2;:%1ci:V;iz 1″:fg;L’_V .;:i€iMfN€} g:§:ss._ §r~%j’;”::””‘:–iE:AR:N<:; 'TEES

BAY', j?i~i;€*,. F{)L£,€)W'iNéf}:
' if; g§gg:}'G~3§ENT

; 'E-'he oL:~;;;;~ "$i1Q1%, éaoimz that reqzzires 33:3: be

é::);:i1.?s;:itiea':'§€dTE;1. ¥thi5 appaagi preferred by the §§1SE.§3f8Ilf{3€

'€';0;3;:p1a;z:af;?'–«.iVS -'ta whethétir thfi tribunal was justified

in d«ed:§étL=i§Lg A I/3&1 ilmteati of 36% whik: amiving at

L.Vi:Tl6 8i?iQQf3'!£11{ fifldéf the héad 01? 1055 $1' c¥apenad&m':"§;.

_' 's7'ih& ~i:'1$ura;T1e€ Cimzapanfg is aggrieved by the '§fi€§"£

-izagiéen by the tribmzal in this ragarcik

_%

Submissiara of the ietarzzsd cou1}s€1..i?::*~:f’

inaurarice Coxnpany is that the wife of the”«’r§jec¢a$€{i ‘

alone was the dependent and t;f1éi’éfe.re’-«’tf1.a3

might to have deducted 53% whi1é;v._a;i*;t’iv§:ag at $18″ :¢s$%~% A

0f dependency animullt and ‘i1§’ti’%.i/3Yd;” {he
muifipiier is conceme:&i;..111ade ifitfiat the
ciecfiiased wafi aged 55 };6a1_”:s __?3f his death

fcailowifig the;I11£§’$€) i* atiiflidaxai. =

3… _5113£§§I§§i’1 22:, =.’5’~*’L1fi1:r;iséi<3«:'z…_ 70f the appeiiant
I11surai:1_ce– :,/-; Thus, the compenaation 0:: tbs wheie

gas rsduged by Rs.§..;32.€§€L}C¥J–. Te aha aaid §X§1″3E”lt;

{X

k’

1 E

the awalfi is mociified by aiiawixig the, appeafi in

thus.

Eivrr