in THE HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS mm 5?" DAY or AUGUST 3099.: _
1-vnmsmrrr' 4 I V'
THE HOIPBLE MR. JUSTICE}; Q u
THE Howsm MR. JU81'i_(3$..8.r§;8J§LTYAi'!§e§:Li?g§Y;$1¢;i
MISCELLAKEOUS rams? Apréfixt; ma:;_).3e':£g_:_§_c'>i'-* 2:204 [3431
C/w MISCELLANEOUS I->'E~.R§'!' rz9.32s9'Ao;a' 2904 (MV1
IN MFA 1m.364moo4: " 'A "
BETWEEN;
The M'an;;g'ng"Bg;s2cto:I':, ' _ *
Tamiinadij States: Thin ' *-- ..
Corporation I..t<:i., Sa1eir1 Div7Ii,.'
Bha1athipuram,* Dhésxttig
TAMILHADU. ~ " "
Now bciohging toV'$-akcm Divisimtl,
ai-.No».12, «
' V _ Ramakrrishna _Road,
'Salem '-«~ {$36 'aim;
.. APPELLAKT.
'(By my s}BP1)s Associates, Advs.)
, S°1nt.M.R.Bhag;*a1akshmi,
"WA/o Late Narayana K,
Aged about 25 Yeaxs.
Mastzzr Bharshan, E:3'<:Lbu. ,
S/0 Late Narayana K,
Aged about 5 Years.
Low
3. Krishnappa,
S/0 Late Muniswamappa,
Aged about 54 Years.
4. Smtfiadhamma,
W] 0 Kzfisltulappa, : '
Agcd about 48 Years.
Rezspondent No.2 is minor a1_1d..V_
was represented by his namfal "
Guazflian and mother .
Smt.M.R.Bhagra}aksh'33;1i, _ , .
the first respondcm hen'-:in;-- _ E, }
Allan: Rcsi;d._i1&1g'-at V
Si:radiSai?'~Ii1.a;§i:=1,V3?"<*'-£v'if"", '
41*' Cross",'Ja1;icsz&a.1:dra,' »
Satiapma Road. " ' '_
3AxrwAwzaE'1:::16_.1"',~,_ .
Rep. By her mother] ap9e}lanf*h:Eo. -.
Aliare Ffe:six:ii.ii;¥3 af ' . ._
_3x'~i Main} «
433 Cross; 'dajckaisaxzcifa,
Saxfivapv-i'aVRoa€i;.% "
Bmmmm, 5 'sad 0.34..' .. APPELLAHT8.
{By s:i:R4.VCna;id:as.t;e1{gg~, Adv. For
' " L M/ siagiyers Net, Advs.)
'I'a131iL*gszdi}.' ':'-"fig.-=,1_.te .T:'ansport
' Corgomtion,"Sa1z2m Div-Ii,
Bhazathipzgram; Dharmapuri,
" 'V V I-:~;:e<.~:.v _he1on'ging to Salem Divisien,
_ $it.1at¢:i at No.12,
' Ra2;u;al:.'.*ishna Roasi,
_ ---- 636 097.
T -- RWPONDEKT
(By M] s.BPI)S Associates, Advs.)
1|r___*___*__*___ *,_i'___*
''''''1
preferred MFA No.3289/ 2004 seeking of
compcnsafiora.
3. So far as MFA No.3642/ 2004 :§$'A§§¢ nA'¢e;¢;.;d-:'
by the owner of the bus invoIv ci§i in &c.:{ez'1Vt'i1 of
K.Na:rayana, alleging that the "of awafiw
in favour of L.Rs., of d<éc;;ascd;"'is,. $i€ie' .'and therefore
sought for reduction of
4. On pcrus.j1}'Vjf§1c the pleadings, oral
and gm-'record of the Tribunal, it is
seen thaj;"th¢--. aged about 28 years at the
time of to the 1" claimant They
had a E}iI103£' SQ:I'1 ag§:d__ years and the ciecéascd 3,130 had the
of of his aged parents who are claimant
4V}:»:_:Af'brx: the Tribunal which fact is not disputed by the
-. fact of acckicnt Itsuiting in the death of
htfie cause of the accident, trelafiouship between the
the claimants are not in dispute. T116: 01113.' dispute
the respondent in the claim pefitéon is regarding
VT jqérmyloyment of the deceasfiei in M] 3. AB’? Ltd., and his incezac as
“contended by clahmants. The document at Ex.P~11, the salary
WI
certificate éiscioses that as on the date cf accident, the ___I’V.:tI3eVfgdeceaseei at
R$.’.2,700/- p.m., as if pmueed ghe elaimamts
in support of the oeeupatiezxegzd as on the
date of aeeide1z%_i.fi:jT.:he “p1?e::1si7.=:2fcio.=:1’111fii::*tf”-tl::Li’£~; of dependency’ deducting 1 /3″‘
for §ersonefi; e_:1pkeep. tieeeased and remaining 2/3″‘ of
Rs.2,7Q{)] «as the ifgeemeiavaiiable for the benefit of the claimants,
iaultipiier of 16 has awaxtied eompexizsaizion of
*5. that arises fer our consideratien in this appeal is:
(1) Whether the Txibuxlal was justified in
zrefusing to accept EX.P-*1 1, salary
certificate for the purpose of ealcuiafiofi
of compensation under the head loss of
Eiepexldency?
‘M1
(2) What award 3’
This Court proceed to answer the same in the ” for
the following: ‘ ‘
REAsog§-_
6. The decision of the Tribunal tie P–
11, the salaxy certificate for of loss
dependency is fer the reason u failed to
examine the author of iaence the same cannot
be accepted in evidence. the Tribunal for
clam 1n’ ‘ is« ‘-r>11e ” the nature of summary
proceec¥i11 “g$.” _’I’hf:_ ‘pf . evidence cannot be applied to
summary Tribililal should not have refused to
-“v1Qok date”‘0f.._$ala1y certificate marked as Ex.P.11, to
i13_£${)Ii1€ of the deceaseci at the relevant point of time.
1?’. ease, 1mm” ediately after the accident While
regarding the deceased, it is stated that the
was worlcing as an Assistant in M/S. AB’? Ltd. which is
fifisigruted by the respondent and the eexfificate that is produced
u “the ciaimants show that his fiaceme at that relevant time was
i?s.4,200/– p.m. Considering the nature of employment, the
W
income of the deceased shown by the claimants in Ex.P-»1_.i.__appears
to be just and proper. ‘There was no mason for to
ciisbelieve the same. Hence, the fiibunal should hzgfire to
accept the said income ané calculate flxe._CQm}jeiisé1¥.;§§::i.Vi”oif}&1oss’«bf’
dependency on the basis of the of
dependency is calculated on “–1:;gasis,”v~tl%m
entitied to a sum of Rs.420{) x :-:__16 9′? ‘hs,S,37f§600/–.
3. The Trial Court has “au%a;xie.g1f:a; of ‘Rs.10,0€}O/~ towards
funeral expenses a13<i__ 1oss"6f- towards loss of
consorfi1§n1 IUWCI side. The Tribunal has also
failed to loss cf Iiove and affection to
claw 311*: .. s the ciald ants are entified in all
tinder heads i.e. funeral expenses, Ross of
'£0 loss of oonsmtium is life and loss of love
and'a£f'ectiQn' miner son of the deceased.
In the claimants are entitled to a total compensation sf
E§Ls_.E3,:8;'2;60{}/– which is munéed 011' to the newest sum i.e.
-.._’ ‘Rs.$’Sj?,85,0{}O/ –~, on which the claimants would be entitled to the
A ” _ ” ‘gaaemst at 6% instead of 3% awarded by the Tzibnnal.
M
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the MFA
N.3289/ 2004 is partially aliowcd enhancing
fiom Rs.3,60,000/- to Rs.s,35,ooo/- yaggth int§:ttést–.}é,t»6′};é ‘p.a._:
the dam of pcfifion an the date of re3I3’.sé:’11;’i«<':–3;:_1.'-.' I
compensation shall be apportidnagi béiwéén in fi1€
same ratio in which is tovjthem in the
impupcd judmcnt by compensation
entire to the benefit of 3:26 deposited in any
one of the the natural guardian
of the age of 21.
11. MFA; ‘bjr the respondent – M/s. ‘I’S’1’C Ltd.
is aisopartaa. L ‘ ” as the rats of interest payable to
V’ fiom 3% to 6%.
i:.>…_ iamh thcappeals are partly allowed.
Sd/-i
Judge
sal-
IUDGE