SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Kar) 10

H.N.TILHARI
VENKATAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SURENDRAPPA – Respondent


Advocates:
G.KRISHNA MURTHY, H.G.RAMESH

H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri G. Krishnamurthy and Sri H. G. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the Insurance company-respondent 3. None appears for respondents 1 and 2.

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises from M. V. C. No. 191 of 1987, decided by the Principal District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Kolar, allowing the claim of the claimant for compensation in part, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs, 38,000/- in total, as also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

( 3 ) THE only point in dispute that has been raised is the quantum of compensation. The claimant-appellant is dissatisfied with the amount so awarded. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires enhancement.

( 4 ) TO complete the facts, it is proper to mention that on 11-6-87, the lorry belonging to respondent 2 and driven by respondent 1, bearing Registration No. MYA-5016, made an accident and in that accident Narayanaswamy aged about 18 years died. According to the claimant who is the sister of deceased Narayanaswamy, deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top