Karnataka High Court
Smt Tulasi vs Smt Kanthamma on 20 January, 2009
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, S.N.Satyanarayana
BETWEEN
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANgafiQéE5f '
DATED THIS THE 20"'tmy 0? JANUARY 2§a9v "
PRESENTI"
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K;SREEbHAR figs .""
AfiaDr_
wan HON'BLE MR.qusrxcamé:N;sgTY§NARAyAfiA
MFA No 726:?§g 2é§3Cfi4VC)
1 SMT TwiA$:"~9 . _
so ygAasa_;' -.*.a
w/0~LArE,suB£AMAyx.
2 mQm&J
30 {EARS ', .V. n_"~
3/3 LAiE_suBRAMAN;>
3 ,fiUNZKRISHN§:
-m28r¥EARS '"'" """
A~_ 3/Q.;A:E,suBRAMANI
V"»_T BARGALORE
" ALL ARE Rib ITMADU
.'mummMwwmmmmA
'uNEAR'AsBA:AH NAKDU srunxo
BBNASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
.. APPELLfiNTS
gay Sr: K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADV 3
£9 _ ~ 3
SMT KANTHAMA
w/o LATE SUBRAMANI
28 yaaas .~w-
RAVISHRNKAR S
5/0 LATE SUBRAMANI
18 YEARS
s LEELA DEVI
9/0 LATE SUBRAMANI
16 YEARS . ;
SHANTHA KUMAR A-uJ =
s/0 ATE T Muwlswamy,
32 YEARS *- V 3'
RAMAKé:s5fiAV" _ ,Afi*~
S/Q LATE E MDNISWAMY ~
3GVYEARs;_ ' *.
D/O LATE MUNISWAMYg
28 YEARS" _j. 'V
R5 .....
"R/OVMAHALINGESHWARA LAYOUT
'~AUDQ@oDI"3ANDE, HGSUR ROAD,
,=BANGALORE_s
',THE.®éiafiTAL INSURANCE C0 LTD
'By ITS MANAGER,
MYSQRE ROAD BRANCH
; OPP POLICE PARADE GROUNQ,
MXSORE ROAD
"BANGALORE
IMTIAZ KHAN
S/O AZIZ KHAN
MAJOR
NO 25, 3RD CROSS MYSORE RQAD
qg;//,
JuI5G1fi3N'r
Notice to respondent No.8~Driver is
dispensed with. Respondent No.1 513 a prooforma party. Hence notice dispensed with. One Subramani died in a motor _vehicle, . EC accident. The' 1"' appellant» is""thechwire-r"' Appellants 2 and 3 are the children of first wifeid through Subramani. Respondente 2 and 3 ere the children of Subramani throdoh hie giate }second wife. Resopndent No.irKafithefiee claims to be the 3% wife. Her evidence in ereminetiehéinwchief is recorded, bet" ehe idid.7notFhSuomitv for cross- examinatiofi 'end "ehe"iehéndonedV»the proceedings. The Tribunai £55 sot eeerded eny compendation to respondent No.i;flResfiondent No.6 is the sister of the deceaeed.. $he Tribunal has not awarded any _.compeeeation mto_ respondent No.6. Respondent *»1N¢s.§ end ,$* are the brothers of the deceased. The ,rr:5unai hhas awarded a portion of the it _compensation: in a sum. of Rs.2S,Q00/M each to ""xthem.
5%
2. The occurrence of accident, negligehfiear and coverage of insurance are not in dieputei The"
deceased was working as a rmec§anic.i'»dEn,dtneu absence of proof of income andl_avocation; "that income is assessed at Re;d;OQG/n per epfififil" As per unit system, sthe 3wite* and ehiidren of deceased are the on{§ iégét;deeendents entitled to compensatiQn'_in:tiaw;: d'i{§Ht 557 be defrayed towardfi Qfireoneij egg§n§es§Iedde§:2,5o0/~ would enure to dthet benefit: eft_#§e§ dependents. The total §iose:Aor7_dependeney-- would be Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.25O(A)S;3,2'X14')';_'V"H wife is entitled to Rs.25yGfiQ/- towards lees of consortium. The wife . dendneniidrenétegetner are entitled to Rs.25,000/- ':peg¢asd},1§gsd; of expectancy' and Rs.18,000/w towards ffineral expenses. In all, the wife and 'da_-'Qhildr€fiAZ of the deceased are entitled to A feemeensation of Rs.4,8G,G0O/- as against "dReg4,00,000/u awarded. by" the Tribunal. Qn the 'V_enhanced compensation the interest yayable is 6% -5- per annum from the date of petition till ps§aéh£;a The enhanced compensation shall be payable to the appellants and respondent Nos.2 and 3 gm? equai share.
Accordingly, the appeal is allfimafi in part, n.'Skifli;fiaafi&, _ 1: \ u& e Nd/*