9
8. ‘f’he evidence on i’t;z’7C}’I’d cleafij; estabfiehee the: the
rzieeeaeed was werking 13:1 Tuka_1’an1 {:1o–0perative Credit B3111:
Limited at Beigeum es Attender on me11’th}_y s_:,ai.a;”j<;,:T of
3332,90"?/-» on the date of hie death. Certificates…i_$ei§e§i33
this behalf by the Manager of the said n K
marked as Ex.P.7 85 11 and the autfxcféeef
else been examineci as P.W.2. As per {he eQzf}e€;er1tior1"s."efV"~Ve
Ex.P.11, the grass saiary of the deeeeieed ¥.5ze:~:§_ per
month and the deceased ;x!ége-r'e§.e_Ve§t*;.ei1defV'AiIiAVVeke said
Bank. The 'I'ribu3.1al by Ff;'f€AIVV'§EV'_i.fi1":l$§ R1} though
noficed that the .; €3f "e}Ie.—-..e§eeease(i was be
Rs.2,90'?/-, pr0eeed_ue£;3;'VV. "i:;K31'1Eh1y income of the
deceesed eomsideratien, the
future that the deceased had Eong
service ir1 i.'ue U tiiiseasis, the '1'1"*i3:)uI1a1 assessed the
P€s.5"2W,2OO/~. Thereafter, the Tribunal
sealefi :Ci€§_'y'£3;"l" i}:1ee111e to Re.4-{),€?{}{3/ ~» in View of the
"vv:_AAi*esf1ictioi2.. if; fiziieduie if of the Efeetor Vehicles ac: as
' to"?-fie petitien under Seetien 163% ef the Act. It. is
E2
to asssess the 1nc:nthi}== income ef the deceased at a hig1§{:?V":';$&;<3' " ~ V
than tile (me, which ha was draw:i:1g as 011 thtig é:f 'h§s'
daath. Under these circumstances, in; our'A'c£}r1sider.é’:f3 V
the decsased at Rs.4,350/ — and the
amma} income to Rs.40,0i)'{)fi f;. t:’}ViV’ a§sessi1″1g
loss of dependency undar SC11€C}.’L11€
II. In View of as 3. bacheler
leaving sistcr, the
Tribunal ivézg multiplier Qf E8 as
applicable to :_’gge <§L{' The Tzibmnai naught to
hg;Ve'_tak¢;:§; age <51" 'i.i;:1v<V%v%_"f§I:*heI" as rétievant for finding out £3216
apiifopfiate ..§;311iti§Ei.¢r. Having regard to the facts and
._7f.L_i:1F:V hi the deceased ought to have been taken at
V’ ‘V–f§Es’;1§’6,{;00/~. If 1/{Sm of this; 311111131 inceme is deductad
“‘£:vz:;:_’i_.§»§a”:*(jis pemanai exptanses sf the deceasfid, axniual loss of
Viiependency m.
\>«f;x:’\.’»\’5£ _ <S\1§'C" L"
we work to Rs.24,0CrG/~. his the cause
‘ . _ ‘
E5
zieposited. The alnount in deposit shali be
concerned Tfibunal. The Tribu11a} is V
amount in accordance with the g:_1ic§e1k}iI=1é;=.V_;:i;f
in General Manager, Kerala Road
Vs. Susamma Thomas’s ‘_rep:§i?i_:7¢’.;:3’j¢ SC
1631. %d %L%%E L’ x