3. T.S.Shubha d/c $.s:dda11n§a:ehQ 35 years, '-- 'U " 4. T.S.Ramesh s/o T.Sifidaiie§aiah;*: Major, , e~*f< "~ ' All are R/o Basaveehware,fixteeeiefi, 3"iCross, Kyathasanfirafi '" '~V" Tumkur Town. e' * '* 5. K.B.Senthil_Kumerfs7o_Belan;' Major, E/ojNetHaji'BypaSs'§V Road, Hofise fig.3/G,e " ' NaraSimhedhar7Street,_ Dharmapurig*Tam1l"fié&uf 5. A.s.shé;kh_Ansar's[c Sheik Abdul Safihar; major, 5833, .. H¢Np.232, MGR Eegar, "H Kfimefaswamy Pete Post, g» Dharmapuri Dist. ','TamilfNadfi;e» .. RESPONDENTS
{Advoce§e Smt.K.S.Leelavathi for R~l to 4)
(R~5 Q 6 .. Notice dispensed with)
j[ag¢wzaN:
:;.7MfA:cRoB 325/2005;
aijr s Sudha d/o T.Siddalingaiah,
41 years,
2.T.S.Binesh s/0 T.Siddalingaiah,
39 years,
3.T,S.Shubha d/0 T.Siddalingaiah,
35 years,
x
proper multiplier to be applied in View of Sarla
Verma’s case is 5. Admittedly claimants §g§e not
produced any documents to show the in¢5ma;§£ fine
deceased. The tribunal had an occasion £0 consider 3
the probable income of fihe:mdeeeaeed’*heceeee’
deceased was practicing in the same cofi:t;_ If the»
tribunal considering the :p%§a§i¢é* deceased had,
had arrived at the rimciusiondrhe the deceased
had Rs.l0,000/a_as his dneofig; ed do not see any
reason to deg §#édenine_eade:dW;Accordingly, we
hold the? ,t§§§3a§¢ge%édti§a§§ getting income of
R510, 0:00/._”\ A’
?. The tribuqg; has deducted 1/3nd towards his
gdpersonaL,£Vexpenses{ The contention of the
appellentfihsprance company is that all the
‘d’s, claidantsfldeere not depending’ ugon the deceased.
dm,They were all majors and therefore deduction of
xaifffl is bad in law. In such circumstances, 50%
“<§§f fihe income should have been deducted towards
'"»_§ersonal expenses of the deceased.
\;'V\v\Aé