ALAEIAA
IN TI"I§5} I"--XIGI-"1 COURT OF I{ARNA'FA.KA
CERCUIT E3.ENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 16'?" DAY OF SEP'F[CME3IEI_%;~ vv
BEFO RE
TI»-H3 I:-IoN'1E3I-£a MI2.JUs'rIcL;v.JAGzxix;v1\éA3f1»?{;<$;N- _ u
M.F.A.No.31'722 A
BETWEEN
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NEKRTC, KARYA SOUDHA
CENTRAL OFFICE, GULBA._RGA:" _'
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW"O,F7'FIC--E3R2;_' A
[BY SMT RATNA SH rvgA§G'D1§xLAf:*r:';' ADV.
FOR sHIvAYcyGr.:4§A'm Assc)c1A'r:«:s_} "
MAL.1.ANNA'S/Gf1\:AGA}5PA KALLUR
AGE 4.5 Y"EA.RS. QCC;.~~GOVT. SERVANT
2. . YEL1.AMz\}:A--.w/0 MALLANNA KALLUR
* 40 YEARS;"'0Cc: HOUSE HOLD
'" '- _BO_'f'H4}iEiE§-RESIDING AT VILLAGE
-_ A E*i'Q'E'APE'£"H'I 'IQ: SHAHPUR NOW AT MATA
MA¥<'}I§{_ESHWAR COLONY, YADGIER.
{BY s'1:IV__AGAN15sI--I NAEK. ADV. F01-{R1 8: R2)
...APPELLANT
RESPONDENTS
‘ ‘I”I”IIS MFA IE3 FIII..I33I’) U/S §”?3{I,]OF ?\/IV ACT AGAINST ‘FI*IIE
‘;§UD(.’:MI?.N’I’ AND ./\\N.»’\.RIj) DA’I’EI.):21.(}4.0Q
IDASSI-£1) EN MVC
AA 3 ,
No.40/09 ON me FILE OF ADDL.MO’I’OR ACCIDESNTS CLAIMS
‘I’REBUNAL AT YAIDGER.PARI’i.Y ALEDWENG ‘me CLAIM PE’E’I’E’ION
FOR COMPENSATEON AND AWARD OF Rs.4.5€J:’oo0/-A/W
IN’1’££RE:s’£’ 6% PA FROM ‘I’*HE«: Dz’-‘x’i’i:3 OF ‘E’E~iE I~’–i;}3V”‘i’i’:.I_”i<(V):N_' TELL
RiCA.i.EZA'I'EON. in "
This appeal is coining on fOI’,”fiI”1£ll d~isp’os–2i_i .t}’1*is”d.e13{, ‘i11e'”z
Court delivered the following: ._
JUDGMEILIEA J ~ ‘
Heard both sides in’dr_espectA’of thei’e;pA}i:_ea1…fina1}y’in
Vi€W of the short point invoA1v.eudA “fo1*’–eonsiC3eratio:n.
2. This appeéxldis questioning the
quanivigizrn ‘ie.i)n1’V;fiens.21i”i0i”1awarcled by the Tribunal to the
respondents/e1’a.irn;§1i1{s—-end the only error committed by
the; T’1i.buna1″ aeeordirig to the appelianfs eounsei is that
in_s’t.ea.d«of%:deducting 50% from the income of the deceased.
‘Avde’duei.ed 1/3″”. Therefore deceased being a
badehei-oi’ the time of death, the MACT ought to have
‘decifluotieci 50% and not i /3*”. The rmiiiiipiier applied by the
E:
mg,
Tribunal is also not cor1*eCt. because the age of the parents
of deceased (night. to have been taken.
3. On the other hand, learned ctciiiiisé:-1–“o:’for the
respondents argued that the COI’I1pCI1Saii0’f1__”aW&.f£i!§d .’does_
not require any modification.
4′ Having heard afgirn
multiplier is concerned anti :fl._0:t’ ifribuhai
could have dedtlcteti «.5&oo/gsiif tihistfleiad of 1/ Sr”,
as the deceased was becihe-]~ovf.v\.’.:’V’.iflonsequently, the
c0mpefieati,:f§I1 the head of ‘toss of
deperidelncy’ ..3f.2,97,0OO/–(?.1,65O x 12 x 15).
The_ §1IT10tii3t{ ur1′.dei**. ctonventional heads given by the
T’1’~§.1Z3’E,1}?IiEli”i–a.I'(‘3 reiié1’i’f1ed and the said amount. comes to
/r.§”_’A.e_:’v1:””\i.111s the total compensation to which the
6% pe.r’a1111um.
e1»:;ima.i”i~?.$_3′ entitled ml} be ?.3,24«,600/– with interest at
Er»
, V
-4-
5. Appeal filed by the NEKFTI’ C is allowed to the
extent of C0mpensz1i.i0n 1)<:i1'1g 1'educ<=:d. The 2}m_oL111t in
deposit before this Court be t1'ans.ferreci to t:h§j
Vv
SR?'