Makarabbi Neelamma W/O Late ... vs Gudadappa Kurubara S/O Hanumappa ... on 26 March, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Makarabbi Neelamma W/O Late ... vs Gudadappa Kurubara S/O Hanumappa ... on 26 March, 2012

Bench: Subhash B. Adi

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

          DATED THIS THE 26   TH    DAY OF MARCH, 2012

                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI

                 M. F. A. No. 24895/2010 (MV

 BETWEEN:

 MAKARABBI NEELAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
 AGE: 43 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSE WIFE,
 R/O HADAGALI TQ., DIST. BELLARY.

                                                   APPELLANT
 (By Sri. : Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV.,)


AND

1.    GUDADAPPA KURUBARA
      S/O HANUMAPPA KURUBARA,
      AGE: 37 YEARS, OWNER OF THE MAHINDRA
      TRACTOR REG. NO. KA-26/T-7015,
      R/O GANGAPURA, TQ. MANDARIGI,

2.    MADIWALAR NEELAPPA
      S/O KARIYAPPA MADIVALAR,
      AGE: 39 YEARS, DRIVER OF TRACTOR
      NO. KA-26T-7015, R/O KATTEBENNURU TQ.

3.    THE MANAGER,
      ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      APMC YARD, GADAG.
      GADAG DISTRICT.
                                               RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.: M K SOUDAGAR FOR R3   ,   ADV.,)
                                    2




       MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR
                                            VEHICLE ACT
 1988,    AGAINST    THE     JUDGMENT     AND    AWARD
 DATED:26J2.2009 PASSED IN MVC
                                   NO.1339/2007 ON THE
 FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLA
                                    IMS TRIBUNAL-Vu AT
 HOSPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLA
                                       IM PETITION FOR
 COMPENSATION     AND    SEEKING     ENHANCEMENT     OF
 COMPENSATION.



     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
                                      THIS DAY, THE
 COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                            JUDGMENT

This is c1aimants appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimant is the mother of the dec eased. She had filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments only to the extent of income of the deceased is concerned. He submits that in a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, income up to Rs.40,0 00/- per annum could be taken and the Tribunal has take n Rs.3,300/- instead of Rs.3,000/-.

4. The ceiling limit as prescr ibed in Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act is on ly to limit the higher inc ome group claimants from invoking the provisions of Section 163

-A of the Act and it is a piece of socia l legislation to benefit cla imants from lower income group. In the instant case, though there is no actual proof of the incom e of the deceased, the Tr ibunal has taken reasonable income.

In my opinion, there is no evidence to show that exactly Rs.40,00 0/- was earned by the de ceased and also, no evidence to sh ow that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. To do justice, Tribunal has tak en income of the deceased as Rs.3, 000/-. I do not find an y error in the impugned judgement as to call for interference.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/ JUDGE sma

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court