Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

Sri V Lakshmana Murthy S/O Venkatappa, and ors. Vs. the State of Karna ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Writ petitioners claim to be in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of different extents, ranging from 30 guntas, 40 guntas. 60 guntas of land in Sy. No.69 of Huralichikkanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli. Bangalore North Taluk, for the past more than forty years and had made applications for regularization of unauthorized occupation by filing applications in Form No.50 under Rule-108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. 1966 in terms of Annexures - B to K to the writ petitions.2. It is to be noticed that most of the applications are said to have been made on 14.8.1991. but some are on 16.8.1991 and on 17.8.1991 also.3. Grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that in spite of the petitioners having sough* for regularization of their unauthorized occupation, the respondents are lukewarm to their applications, have not passed orders on the said applications and it is therefore the petitioners are constrained to approach this court seeking the following reliefs:a. Is...

Papanaika S/O SomlanaikA. Vs. M/S National Ins. Co. Ltd, and anr.

Court: Karnataka

1. The claimant in MVC.No.913/05 is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation as against the sum awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.3. The facts relating to the accident having occurred on 20.2.2006 and the claimant having suffered injuries in the accident are not in dispute. The nature of the injuries suffered in the accident is established by the documents, which were produced as Exs.P24 to 26. The claimant had suffered fracture of femur and other- injuries. Insofar as the injuries, detailed discussion is not called for inasmuch as the disability has been assessed by the Tribunal at 15% and the same has been reckoned for the purpose of calculation in respect of which there is no challenge and the same is appropriate. The question however is with regard to the appropriate multiplier and the income to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of compensation under the head of loss of future income. The appropr...

Thimmarayappa S/O HuchhappA. Vs. G.S.Gangaraju, and anr.

Court: Karnataka

1. The claimant has; come up in this appeal being not satisfied with the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Bangalore in Case No.WCA/NFC/CR-6/2006 dated 11.4.2007.2.It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was working under R-l as loader and unloader in lorry bearing No.CNT-7364, while discharging his duties as loader in the lorry on 18.3.2006 he sustained grievous injuries on account of the fall of wooden log on account of the sudden moving of the vehicle by the driver without giving anysignal and without observing that the appellant was discharging his duties as a loader, he was admitted to the Govt. Hospital, Nelamar.ga2 a and then shifted to Victoria Hospital, he was there as in-patient and case was registered against the driver of the vehicle by the Nelamangala police in Cr.No.303/2006. According to the claimant, he has suffered 100% disability of the earning capacity. In order to prove his case, he relied upon the evidence of the doctor who treated...

Sri.Shankarappa S/O UttappA. Vs. Sri.B.C Srinivas S/O.Chikkavenkate Go ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Smt. Sunitha. learned counsel for claimant and Sri. K. Poornananda Rao. learned counsel for insurance company and I have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment:3. The Tribunal accepting the medical records and medical evidence has held that claimant had suffered fracture of right tibia at lower 1/3rd and fracture of neck of right fibula. The claimant was treated as an inpatient in Bowring & Lady Cur/.on Hospital. At the time of accident, claimant was aged about 27 years and he was working as construction worker.4. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries, consequent pain and suffering, probable medical expenditure, loss of earning capacity, loss of earning during laidup period, residual effects of injuries and also making provision for future medical expenditure has awarded compensation of Rs.2,51,260/-.5. The finding of Tribunal about nature of injuries, severity of injuries, permanent...

Smt.B.K.Sindhumathi W/O Late Madhusudhan, Vs. Raju. S/O Nanjaiah, and ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Sri.Jagadeesha V.N., learned counsel for claimant and Sri.M.V.Poonacha, learned counsel for insurance company3. The brief facts which have not been disputed by either parties are as follows: The deceased V.Madhusudhan was the husband of claimant. He met with a motorcycle accident on 3.6.2007 and died on the same day. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 66 years. The claimant is the only recognised dependant of deceased.4. The claimant had contended that; deceased was running a vegetable shop in Devaraja Market at Mysore but had failed to substantiate the same. The Tribunal has determined the income of deceased at Rs. 125/- per day or Rs.3, 750/- per month. The Tribunal despite noticing the fact that first claimant was the only recognised dependant and claimant No.2 and 3 who are major son and daughter of deceased were dependents for limited period has deducted 1/3rd of income of decea...

Santhosha S/O NanjundappA. Vs. M.K.Joseph S/O Kuriyandath, and anr.

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, learned counsel for claimant and Sn.S.V.Angadi, learned counsel for insurance company.3. The Tribunal accepting the medical records and evidence of PW.2 Dr.K.Shankar has held that the claimant had suffered following injuries:1) Lacerated wound on right eyebrow2) Lacerated wound on chin3) F/A right elbow measuring 3x2cms dorsum4) Friction abrasion of right wrist and dorsum, measuring 1x1cms5) Avulsion injury6) Friction abrasion on left 3rd and 5th toe7) Multiple abrasion of both knees elbow8) Swelling on right hypothalamuscmincence9) X-ray report from S.CH.No.2311 shows fracture of left cuboid bone.4. The claimant was treated in J.C.Hospital at Hassan. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 22 years. He was an agriculturist by occupation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.26.000/- under following heads:I. Pain and agonyRs. 10,000II. Loss of income during treatmentRs...

Misri Devi @ Misiri Bai W/O Mukana Ram, and ors. Vs. Oriental Insuranc ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation as against the sum awarded in MVC.No.790/04.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.3. The facts relating to the accident having occurred on 1.12.2003 and the husband of the first claimant having succumbed to the injuries in the said accident is not in dispute. The only question for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the enhancement of compensation under the head of loss of dependency.4. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation under the said head has reckoned the income of the deceased at Rs.3.000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal was not justified inasmuch as the claimants had produced documents to indicate that the deceased was engaged in the business of pawn broking and money lending. The learned counsel for the respondent however contends that the Tribunal infect has noticed that aspect of the matter and since no...

R.V. Nanda Kumar, and ors. Vs. Prabhakara S/ O Manjunath, and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. As these appeals are arising out of a common judgement and award of the tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgement. 2, For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal,3. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are: On 27.11.1909, when, the claimant was returning home by walk, alter visiting Shanidevaru Temple on Belur Road, chikmagalur, the rider of the motorcycle .bearing registration-. No.KA-18-E-8946 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, chikmagalur seeking compensation of Rs. 10, 00,000/-The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.4,27,072/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal: The claimant has filed MFA No. 13814/2007 for enhancement of compensation and the Insurance Company has filed MFA No...

Veera Swamy Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal Se ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(3)KCCR2337; 2012(1)KantLJ525

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned orders dt.29.12.09, in FTL No.3/05-06 and RA.No.13/08-09 passed by the R2 vide Ann-A and order dt. 17.3.05 passed in SC/ST 4/04-05 passed by the R3 vide Ann-B and order dt.27.2.1980 passed in LGR 230/1979-80 passed by the R3 vide Ann-C and Restore the Land in favour of the petitioner on the basis of sagvalli chit issued in favour of petitioner.) 1. Writ petitioner claims to be a person belonging to scheduled caste community and on such premise an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.164 located at Duglapur Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamangalore District, it appears had been granted in favour of the petitioner as is claimed and is evidenced by saguvali chit dated 21.12.1978 (copy produced as Annexure-E to the petition). 2. It appears the Asst. Commissioner cancelled the grant in terms of an order dated 27.2.1980 (copy produced as Annexure-C to the petition) on...

Andanagoudar Vs. the Management of N.W.K.R.T.C, Divisional Office by I ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Venugopala Gowda, J The matter is on Board, to hear regarding non compliance of office objection. The office raised objection with regard to the maintainability of this review petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having endorsed on the Form of Examination Report (Form No.14) to the effect that “Under Order 47 Rule 1, there is no prohibition for second review and may be posted before the Court.”, the matter has been placed before us. 2. It is necessary to notice in brief, the facts of the case, which have led to the filing of this review petition: The petitioner/workman remained absent from duty while working on the post of Junior Assistant with the respondent/management from 18.7.86 to 30.10.86 i.e., for about 102 days. Management issued ‘Articles of Charges’ on 21.8.87 alleging that, the absence was unauthorised and amounted to misconduct, to which, the workman submitted his reply. The explanation offered by the workman having been found to be not satis...