in Tmz; men <;0u1~r1*m«'KA1 ‘i”:ii1:2 _
Ni) 41/2A~2–13~ Ni’l’HANANi3AI%AL}Eg~RAi.
NAYAN DAHALLI;Bé’1Y’S(}RE RQAI}. .,
BANG$~i»0R¥3i’39::–_
BY t§iv1S§2§AL. ‘
mg’ 52:. %,vz:~:«;a.,y Vn:<1) Mp;,.r:x__.__ VAEHVILAS ROAD
;ABAsAv;mGt;uI., B§&NGA;L'£J'RE 560 004
=,_BY._:rs 'hiA§\_I_AGER_ _ M
. . . AP!"'l:'3LLA£'i'l"
(B3; ‘sri; 0 ‘Vmw4:B;SH,”‘ Afiv.)
‘ ;Ai’»~I.iff) ” ««
‘ sM*1′{J§01’H1 KUMARI
“AGE;D 31 YEARS
” «£10 :3 sumssn
RJAT NO283, “rm (moss,
KASTURBA c::)LoNY
EBRAN NAGU N’l’E
GIRLNAGAHA, 1; S’l’A£}l:$
BANGALRQE 560 035
‘2 DEEPAK
AGED ‘.24 YEARS
S/{Iv bA’l’E KRiSHNAMU§’?l’H¥
R] AT NG283, 7′?!-I CROSS,
KA3FURBA COLONY EEHANNAGUNTE
GIMNAGARA, ll Sl’AGrE
BANGALROE 560 095
3 ULLAS
AGES YEARS
8,10 LA’l’f:Z i~iRl!’:2~hiNAMU§{i’HY
RIAT’ NG283, ‘7’I’1~i CROSS,
KASFURBA CEQLONY EERANNAGUNTE
G§iv3lNA{}AHA, ll S’I’AGE
BANGALRGE 560 085
4 H GOPI
MAJOR 1
S10 N0’l’§.)l’:$(3L(.)Sh}D « ~
PROP: M/S. HEMANTH BIJILDERS
JALAKANTESHWARA M11IN”~RGAD’-
SAGAR HILLE DAIRY ‘
GPP MALLESHPALYA,
NEW THIPPASANIJRA
BANGALORE ” ‘
(By asimi <3fi.;sH}i§:g;::x?'i,.«As)v§ R1-3)
"1*u;::~§ raga' 1j'lL-1.33:) 5173(1) or' MV Am' A(}Ai1'«iS'l'
THE JUDG_MENT_ .es.:N'{1._-'..'~ AWARD 1:)ATE1:):21/1.1/£2005
¥3'ASSE1~D in M3__1c;::-M). 1-1616/22006 0:»: THE FILE OF' THE
14TH.%.fiADDL. wags, MEMBER MACI', COURT OF' SMALL
f"«»;*:Aus1#:s,'~V.M;.=:frRc3Po':;m\N AREA, BANGALORE (SCCH~10),
AW'A.I_?1')IN£} .44v<:<3MPENsATrc3N ma' RS.3,59,000/- WITH
I_f~i'3fI§;I4€.€?3S'!? 695a;.P.A. FROM mg Di1TE 0:: THE PETITION
m;:;;;~::;;»<;s:¢;;%;*1~; . 1;
'1'h–iS' coming on for crciers t.t1i$ day the
'pourt cicliiarered the foliewingz
dU¥.)GrMEP4'l'
'l'h0ugh this appeal is posted for orders, with ma
' c_o1'1sem of iaameé counsel on both sides, it is ileard.
finaily. /gt.
7. On the basis of the material an recoxfrfl
tribunal awagmied compensation of .
interest at the rate of 6’% p.21. f17(3:e:;,__4the_*’rf££a’téa: K ”
petition til} reaiisation.
8. izieing aggieved by §of.. fhfi: in
awardixzg huge compeI3s§at:i01?i’_.”” cdmpany
has P!’eferred this a.1f3Pt3a–1: ‘\
9. 1 have f§r:e ibr the appe1£aI1t–
ins1Hance”T’co:}1peiii?;- a;’I1(i=. fi1e”‘L«:~ained counsei for the
respenfiieni ‘$403; 3 ‘
1U. 4;1’t”is érabehaii’ of the appeliant herein
had two major sons and one daughter
%.Ati1ére;_ 1:10 question of dependency 0:’
V _ claifisantfifrésponéent Nos. 1 to Z3 herain on their
.§1;A0tt}er.V””.1r1 the circumstances, the tzmmnai erred if;
.’ eioéérdmg the compensatien on the head of £035 of
T ” ‘éépendency. in the aitexfiative, he submits that the
A award ought to have been made @1113″ an the head of 2055
sf estate, and nether conventienai heads. In the
/§..
circumstances, he submits that the judwitzziiirand
award requires modification.
1 1. Per mntra, iearried c0uz1s.i%iA’f€iI «re’spQ:1.r_fii:€::;”1_t:I*i’ss.vi.’i
to 3 supporfing the judgment
case, the deceased was :i11Co_iI:<:: i€s:3V,UUU/ mi
which is assessed bpitbs tiliaii efien in the
case of a death income is
considered = anrzum and
is awarded
and awarded by the
tribL1:ié.!__ and she submits that the
s<}r;i;3e1}sa€i:m'0i1 the ether heads are also just and
and Vhféquests this court to dismiss the
12; ~ hears the ieatned counsei on both sides,
only point that arises far my censiderafion is,
i Viiwhemer the judwent and award by the tribunai sails
for any modification.
13. in the instant case, it is net: in dispute that the
claimants are the major $0113 and daughter of the
$,
deceased who was their mother. U;£1de:r;'”the
circumstances by Virtue ef the principies ~ V
the cieeieion of the Honfble Supreme Court -f:aee”d1’~v..’t
Mcmjuri Bera We. The O7iental1;.Irtsi_§?tzn’ce
anether decided on 3U.3.2UQ*f,4_ in th.¥_e’ea$e ‘V
being the magor some and of
demndency wouid ‘or;’theVtqA’1;{estien of
loss to estate tl:1a_t awarded. By
appiying this am 0:’ the View
that It “‘ei:$1V*rect in awarding
of of dependency. The
awarded on the head of
less. estate notional income of the deceased
»fefiQwi:tig.Lhe’-.decieion ef the Division Bench of this eeurt
Qimanavaiagan V/s. A.Krishnamw*thy &
g 2004 liar 3268). In the ‘metanl: case, the
.. fatie the Honfibie Supreme Court in the ease ef
eeseeesment of compensation for the death of a house
tvife also carmet be appiied as the claimants are the
children and not the husband and the deceased is the
mother. in the instant case, the tribunal has assessed
/2’
national income to be at b<'.s.3,0UU/~ per montizg
notityxual income could be assessed at his. ~
and accordixlgly, by applying tf1e.;:I1ultipifi§f'§i*:: " V'
of .t_.UOU/~»~ has 1:0 be aWar;;ied::’_§:I1[v t.i:i<':–
estata. in addition, on th:3…_ h§:ad "jaxld
funerai (expenses a 81.11:} of iéawaiided and
3 SHII1 of Rs. 3.5-,UUO,'.1ead of ioss of
iove and 2 compen$ati0I1
Rs. 1,a1,oc:{i from the date of
0181111: ' '"'i"}i1e Said 0ompe:1sat:k)n
shah in accordance 'With tbs
Ciire§:_t"_10n offllt: For the aforesaid masons, the
' _ part. The statutory deposit beibrt:
' 'giirected to be transmitted before the
Sd/'Z,
Iudge