UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PB. NO. 237, 34/3, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, M.M.K. COMPLEX, II FLOOR, P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI M. NAGAPPA Vs. SMT.LATHA W/O. LATE NAGARAJA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and award 2.4.2009 passed in MVC. No. 443/2007 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and MACT, Holalkere, the Insurance company has filed these two appeals on the ground of excessive compensation. The case of the appellant is that the deceased Nagaraja Naik and the deceased Umesha were going on the Motorcycle bearing No. KA. 16/L -7465 on 22 -7 -2007 at about 5.00 p.m. near the garden land of Sanna Rangappa of S -Neralakere village, the driver of the bus bearing No. KA. 44/1233 by driving the same in a rash and, negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident both sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The Legal representatives of the deceased Nagaraja Naik filed MVC No. -178/2007 and Legal representatives of the deceased Umesha filed MVC No. 443/2007. The Tribunal by the common Judgment awarded compensation of Rs. 6,82,000/ - along with interest at 6% in MVC No. 478/2007, and a sum of Rs. 4,00,100/ - along with interest at 6% in MVC No. 443/2007 Aggrieved by the excessive compensation the Insurance has filed MFA No. 3976 of 2009 and 3977 of 2009 respectively.

(2.) THE only contention raised by the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 150/ - per day. It is contended that the said amount is far too excessive and the same be reduced.

(3.) HEARD counsels and examined the records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the said case which arose from the State of Karnataka itself was of the view that the date on which the accident took place the wages of the labourer was anywhere between Rs. 3,000/ - to Rs. 4,500/ - per month. In the instant case, the same is taken at Rs. 150/ - per day. It is in complete consonance with the findings recorded by the Supreme Court. Hence, in view of the aforesaid said Judgment, I find that both the appeals are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.