United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Sapana @ Swapna on 17 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Sapana @ Swapna on 17 June, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
 Am;:«:.{ VV 

IN Tiriii HIGH $01312? cw KARNA'FAK.;3M__VV'V VVV :..
DA"f'E',D THIS THE': 1?"! D..fs'?VV{3'::*   
BE:,F0R'§\     V" VV 
MISCFZLLAN }":'.{)LIS m:s:{r Apvmzfi-.r¢{§,A_ 1 1V£§§V1vviC)FT..;;V'.{){)'? (Mm

{.§ni1r.:<}. India 1:1'.3.%1.:}VaV11c€:   VV
Divisional Ofiick, I~';;L}E3.V1'~§.<)V.'-- 611}, V' A  

"Sangama B%;ui}d';ngv.,v-  ['<'oz-id, .

¥3ijapurH586   V" '     

Represented .};)yj_itsVV'V is, ._

Divisimgai Mafl3geg. '3. ' V

  V . V       Appaiizsmt

(133: Sri. suagrs;x;ai;J,_ Advaéégte for Sri. PB. Raju, Ariivocate)

. 1'. * Sapana  Swapna

V' §i2','.o'iZ§;1:1f1ii:§1j"anabi{;"; Anavi

 _ VV'Ag€:d"aVb:3ut. years,

' ,§)Vc:::: §j¥g§13V$e¥10l=d work,
R j 0 I  Rudrappa Bukkaxmi,
JOI""~j1'f)i._1I' Path, Gunavar Q3313

Sahebgouda S] (.2 Revappa Mulimani,
"*£';g*ged about 56 yams,

Occ: Agri(':uitu1'e, R] 0 Mulasavalagi,
Sindagi 'Taluk, Bi3'apur {};istri<::t.

3. Basalingavva W/0 Maiiikazjun Anab
Ageci about 46 years,
G(,'.C'. Privatfi service, R/0 Shivanagi.
. Respondents


(B3: Sri. Vittal G. Koliur and Sri. Bapugeuéa Siddappa, Advocates
for R1, Sri. Mrutflunjaye: Taia Baxzgi, Advecate for R2, Sri. (}.C’r.
Chagasehtti, Sri. LR. Biradar, Sfix Jagadish Patii, Advéxrates for R3}

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173 (1) of
the j11dgn:1e111: and awaxtl Ciatttd 29.06.2007 pa3_s;éd4.i;z..__M\{(;~.No.
133/()5 on the file 9f the District Judge, Mgmbmj,”2.MACi’I’4’IiI,

Bijapur, awarding a compezmation of Rs. 3I3’t.:*1’§iS’£.._

6% pa. from the dam of petition ti11r;ie§3Qsi1’_.

This M.F’A. (taming on for admission i:hé<C2(m.rt
deiivexttd the followiflgi V V * V

awmu »

The _a_1_$§:'é.i–3a1;i~<in$1;fa;}c€_ _* company' is aggxiavsd by the
qzlantuméjf CQmpc_fi;~§é1'i§éfi–.__§iw2§1ried to the ciep€nda11t widaw of the

cieceasad in fhigs 21p}3e2é;§. As 1115 queation involved is oniy with

. rfigaixi. the .quant.iifii'¢f compttnsation, it is not necessary? to deal}

.wit§1 asfgects i.IiV()§,V8d in the matter.

12.”–.*:i”‘.}1i:”.i’2iec:easc<i was a young am} able bedied. person aged

._i2'='§ ;;.{ea3'S"Canjzi13g 01": btxsjnezss of beok vcncirixlg at thfi flint: wlwn 11$

_' fi1€i'i"$«'¥3'.ifl1 the actcidant' T116 -tribtxnal bass taken his income at Rs.

~'v€§',TVli)()£)/– per month. In Pam–18 of the judgment the tribuna}. has

observed that at i}'3.6 time of the accident he was }:1avi1'1g a husixless
f paper é”~1g{fI1Cj{ at Shivanagi in Bijapur taiuka. it hem placaéi
mliarzcti an Ex. P4 1 which is an agrtzement dattzvzl 2631 Magmh 12004


the business. married on by him. This assessment is required to be

magic, keeping in mind the totality of the circum3tanc.e$»-ifivelveti in

this case.

33. Though learned emmsel fer the appei}§u ; I;.. ebzxiexfiis

that the deduction towards >e§rf§:e:1ses emgilibt. _to hVave”.beré:1 “<.

50% in the instant case as the oniy é1e1:}e,ndan.{'Vi*;e"w:3e

was his Wife, such a emztentiori "ee1"1n0t be deceased
was supporting the family };:'e""'m§j1:gf marfied having an

establishment 0f his oxvfi to spend i'§(F% of his

emnings fQ.rfiiii2'ee1f.:'«.Th.e e'sg3;denee on record does not lend suppert

to this a3fg1ni1e1":t.=._ «V * H

'~§;§"£vei:1<re i1:1 th–e. of the discussion made above, this appea}

pa;'fl}' The income of the deceased is taken at Rs.

"5.,$e(;';§";§é;~– with deduction towards persona}. expenses at

1/33'. 1.;}Zil:i4'}3{)II1]_Z)€DS2i§"iOI1 is Ce-mputeci an this basis applying the

(}f 17 the loss of {iependeney comes to Rs. 7,48,0f}()[«~.

.' The tfibunai has awaxfled RS. 1203000] — inwards legs of COI1S€)I"til11I1

"'–ze1:10ther sum of Rs. 2(),(}O0[~ towards 1033 of estate and Rs.

3.€},£}()(}/ ~ towantis fu1:1e:ra1 expenses. The amount awanied towards
funeral expenses at Rs. }Q,{}{}()/- is on the higher side. It is

required ta be reduced to Rs. 55000] ~–. In 311 other aspects the

‘”W}.{.m9~«. r”‘~


amount aw:-mded does not call 3133: i:1tt:r°ft:re3;1ce. §fi~~–€i1′:3. __i*£~;S’.y:l’1.,« the

total Coznpansation to which the ciaianant is ::.:;p£;i:f1z:d’ tau

?,93,{){)0/ ~. Petitioner is erztitled fog-f’inffif€:§t”‘at -t%1–e:_.Vra,i§:_VVt)f

3111111131 on the amount. 30 dfiterminecffrém the p€:’ii’u:i(“‘>Vr;=.Vti31

Appeal is 3CCordh.ig¥j} ‘ai}dwes;:§’ 310 costs.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information