The Manager The Oriental … vs Adiyappa on 14 December, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1473"' DAY OF DECEMBER 2009

BEFORE:

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND  L.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPE.AL_ No.-1"1'5djOE'2.QQ8*-  A "

BETWEEN:

The Manager,

The Oriental Insurargee
Company Limited _ I' _ ._  1
No.44/45, 4"? Floor,  A  *

Leo Silopping com'p1'e;:,_E' 
Residency'    
Banga.Ia1*e~.,58;O  " .9

Repre;$er1_tedE'byV 1'1;S=_  . _'

Regional Manager}      ... APPELLANT

(By Shri.E;B:RL1_iL1;v_ Afrvdciate)

    """ 

E'   Q" A "

 /ijjate «N_IaraLp'p..a,
aged abryutg ".7 years,
Resi'c11'r1--g ax" Chuehaghatta

 ' '-.,Vi1lage€VV_3'Eear Yellamma Temple,
 ' "V.'a.V,KaLnakapura main road,
 j " }ja.nga]0rew56O 062.

" " .   Smt .\/enkatalakshm amma,

w/0 Adiyappa,

aged about 41 years,

Residing at Chuchaghatta
Viliage, Near Yellamma Temprg



3. The Counsel for the appellant submits that the
income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3000/- permonth,

on the footing that he was a mason. As 

from the record, he was aged about 19   

material to demonstrate that";  Va "

profession. Having regardgtto the 'falct thatv~"--l.th:e 'deeeas-etigg

was from a village, the suggestion that-.h'e'{vas:§ a mason
earning Rs.3OOO/A  accepted by the
Motor Accident Claimflsfl' 'lhvereinafter referred to

as 'the 'l'ribLtr1ai'f;1jtfor b'1*eVE';ty:). 4_Since"ti'1e claim petition was

under   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
Tribtznal oughttoA:h.aVe:A'ad'opted the minimum notional

i1'1eorn_e that \2\}as.permiAssible, in the light of there being

 ~._ng"m.at-eriailexridenclel to establish that the deceased was

 Rs.3OOO/Aper month and it is this

prAim_ax*_\{* ' that is sought to be urged to challenge

 "'theg2fmz/aid passed by the Tribunal.

 On the other hand, the Counsel for the

respondents would submit that the deceased was

employed as a mason from the age of 16 and he was

3

if this is applied, the respondents wouid be entitied to a
e(‘)m_pensa1i0I1 of Rs.3,40.000/~ [Rs.2500 X 12 X

17] under the head loss of dependency.

conipensation under the COI’1V(31’1tiOE’1El1.V__I”‘I€.E1C’.:_S’.”‘ rern’ai_n

undisturbed.

Accordingly, the pe:itiond’—-A_’iS a]eVici?wevd.A’

respondents » claimants ent’i-tiiedij a total
compensaiion of -«v_vitTh«.interest @ 6% per
annum from the clate.,_Qf “”FhVe:fgzfiount in deposit

be reieased {in ‘f3¢’\f’O1.1vI4″AOfV_1’vL.}1€’Ciai1Ti2i’i’itS — respondents to

the (;:’j<"t;ei'1't* baiance remaining be

1'efi1i1c1zed'£;0

Sd/-

JUDGE