High Court Karnataka High Court

Yamuna Saunshi vs Gopal Govind Karijol on 27 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Yamuna Saunshi vs Gopal Govind Karijol on 27 August, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
R/O JAMBELENNAVAR ON!
SAUNIf.)A'I"I'I, BELGAUIV!

{By SR1 M V HIREMATH, ADV.)

AND

5...:

GOPAL GOVINB KARIJQL

s/0 GOVIND   5  ~
MAJOR, R/O ARUN NILRYA '--  . 
VISHAN NAGAR, £31.,uwUR- 583310;? 

2. THE NEW 1zéinié;'A$s1}r>.Ai=¢Ci§:c:fi§zse1$;%§:§Y"Em
BYITS aimsronm.-'3aAN5QER__   
IGRLOSKAR 'R_G'§°;D, L3}3.I.,c,w.z_2s4;"'" 

 RESPONDENTS

{By 312: P H ?m’AR, ‘;:;1:>*;r..’A’14’a’> §~~Q._;z.¥;’2j

._”‘%*’:*r+11é3″ ‘;~.1%?;==.is:g_AL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
‘THE J’LI§)L’3E}I’v{E€~fF’*AND AWARD DATED 11.10.5200? PASSED IN

Marc”-T’r§Q.’:’5i_.s;2=t§G5 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, ADDITIONAL
Matti; sAu1_~:m.ijm, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITEON FOR

V.C0MPENsAfrI{;N AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT’ FOR

1. «.__CoMPEré$;~’gf=ioN.

“I”AHfS APPEAL COMING QN FOR A{)MESSIOf*\1 THES DAY,

‘% “j ‘THE scum’ BELEVERED THE FOLLOWING:

i

«F
05

$ H Vk

4

3. The learned ceunse} for the respondents:

sought to gustiiy the award passed by the ekiet V’

contended that me Tzibunal z1ot..iced__a11 .a#.sA;3e§é§ie’vv§iI”:.–i:i3eV”a1§e,tter M ‘

and based on the evidence available en has

conclusion and therefone, the”‘-~§ameA’v- does T’ ..not “ealI” for’-V

interference.

4. The eententiQr1′–v..o;f is that the

deceased was ‘vs:{<i~;:r1<;;'1}u é2s"a.;Viriver: 'Ki1sofar as the income, it is
no deubt"-_t1"i.1e th.at'«.iheire_. 'Wage… no documentaty evidence to

indicate the eietzial income»; However, the Tribunal has noticed

..~ vibe at A' which is the licence held by the

tgVwerAi;i'a.s a driver. The Tribunal has alse accepted

the 'eg:A$1i.:t'e11tV:ii)&£i: he was Working as a driver in private motor

vehicle: "if; aspect is kept in View and eensidezing the fact

the aeeidexszt had occurred in the year 2006, though the

K regard to the wages and the batta may be slightly an

2. “higher eide, in any event, the income in the instant case

$

‘Z;

In terms of the above, the appeal stands {if

no orticr as to costs.