Karnataka High Court
Manager Legal Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co ... vs Mudiyappa @ Muddaiah on 1 April, 2009
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE' HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
;;)ATm THIS Tm 181' my OF 1;--&1f'R1é;"-:. O'4(:}9_{ if %% é 7
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JU$'I'ICE 24gL:M2m ~1
M.F.A.NO.2O66T1/2GQ£}.'(MVT
BETWEEN: '-_ x 1
K310: LC}MBARD"GEN:fNS 1%' M
II FLOOR Bm,L;xD 3§a.%:&111.:511\:.(3¢'% ._ '
GOKUL ROAD- %
REP. MANAGER _ APPELLANT
(By sad; (2 KQLLOORI, adv.)
' %%%%%
% 1. _ "M'U13}:YAPPA @ MUDDAIAH
"-A';;::_: 5f§&~YEARS.
2;» V-.SMT"'JADEMMA W/O MUDIYAPPA
'~ Age: 46 YEARS.
':2/<3 KERKWE VILLAGE
TQ & DESI' BELLARY.
3. HANUMANTH S/O DOD}Z)ABASAP?A
% RIDER 012' THE MOPED
AGE MAJOR
R; 0 SOMASAMUDRA
W"
TQ 83 DIST BELLARY
4. N PAMAPAPATH1 S/O MUKI-(ANNA
occ OWNER OF TVS MOPED
AGE MAJOR
R/O SOMASAMUDRA I « A_ , % "v . A
TQ & DIST BELLARY Rasvowrjgmmfs
THIS MFA FILED U;Ts%..§73(1)x oiimv ,A(;'rA{NS'I*
TI-IE JUDGMENT AND "AWARD ?3_A'1A'E'D:'iv9/1}./2008
PASSED IN MVC NO.665_l.2006aQN 'mE%FIIiE OF THE:
MAC'?-IX, BELLA§eY;%.%AvzA:zj3::m'%»coMPENsATIoN OF'
RS.2,41,000/~ wrrIéik'1r»**1*E:;2.I§:vs'rLf1*}:12:12E0N AT 6% RA.
FROM 'THE DATE QECLAIM :PEfI-', 'E{)N"TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS CC)MI_N"G 'L%ON3VLF9§§ ADMISSION THIS
DAY; '£'£«iECOi3'€T :P2§SSE§ "TPiE FOLLOWING:
A '::"'*--..;'}i}'DGB/IBZNT
'V This gétppeal by the 3RD resmndent; being
the judgment and order dated 19.11.2008
'- Motor Accident Claims 'I'ribunal-IV,
U
2. As per the avérments of the claim pe1:i¥::i.o1"; on
10.6.2006 at abeui: 4.30 p.m., the 1" respondent before
the court beiow, was riding a TVS Moped bearing No.KA~34 Q~4843 from Kerekere village towards 06*"
Somasamudra on BellaIy«-Siruguppa [I Manjunath was the pillion rid__er..__ 4Du;e"to" _ negligent driving of the TVS z;i'«1opeé*,'V lost contra} and the pi%I]i'c:-ti rider Manjunth sigffered ~ ' * He euccmnbed to the injuries on Hospital. A claim impugned order 3 Fmalong with interest @ 6%' 'p;'a.tt "'Ag@eved by the same, the insorer.has. appeal.
:3. SrtNa.g5araj C. Kalloori, learned Counse} for A _,ghe,':Aag>pe1iant, contended that the order under appeal is * A ' e1*1'o:1e"o:1Se:=V''az1d hence irlterference is calied for. In epeeifieg he raised o11e more question for consideration At 'T this court, viz. that the deceased was a miner at the time of accident and hence the amount awarded is €2'IFOI160i1S .
are
4. On peruse} of the impugned o.rider;b seen that the deceased was I1_C)I;,.I}1iI10}_." "as -~o1_1the'«dat_e 'of the accident. He was aged I9 yeaes 'as' of the accident. Re1iance._V:vLXt:es ' postmortem report," to 1 :t;1e_fi5age of the deceased was _Hence, the only submission~tI1--_at ~be.VccgnVsi'dered is, whether the the quantum of }age of the deceased to be 181VV'3ree§:s' ;;;ut.rived at the compensation so awarded? of the records, I see no error or co:tt1H1i'i;ted by the trial court in awarding the nor any ground is raised or pleaded A -..__to a§iteif'..- the compensation. Hence, there is no ground x T out to be considered in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is rejected. No costs. R Sd/-_-
Judge Sub"