IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE'
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. AEDUL 4- _ ''
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1 ,1A21§2 7
BETWEEN :
New India Assurance Co, S
Rep. by Divisional Manage-r_ _ L
No.4./7, Gopal Complex '
Bazaar Street, '
Yeshwanthpura_, S '
Banga1ore--27_V _ _ " "*--;':.APPELLANT
{By Sri:R. Jai Ergkggh E: E':/.I'V.'"'.Z.\x/_i1.1:1V§i1*'21j1V'i§,, Advs.)
AND:
1. Smt. R..__U'ma" _ V'
Major 4' V.
.. «N0. 125 1 , MaruthinV';Vas
- S,.8'*~'h ajcross, Cha1iti'r'a Layout
E * .. _VBa.ng2.1%intr'e~.V-- 40
~.
A Major ' '
M'aSfcr L. Harish
* .=___Min"or
S . V 'Smt. Kenchamma
Major
All are r/a. No.42/1, 3"' Main
Hosahalli, 3, Vijayanagar
Bangalore -- 40
R-3 being minor
is represented by R~2. RESPONDl:}N'Ig'S_'»_l'~._v
(Notice to R-1 is dispensed with}
This MFA is filed u/s. 173(1) ageids-t,'
judgment and award dt.2.8.2005g passed". in %.g\/l'V.7_"C..
No.2008/2003 on the file of the:14th Addl.'w.Judge;'.LCourt of
Small Causes, Member, Met.ropo1i'tan~..._'~A1:ea,
Bangalore. '
This appeal coming""on .fo1--fpor_ders~.Vthis~ day, the court
delivered the following: C . *
Thoughthis matterlposted for orders, by consent of
Counsel for*the*appellant, it is taken up for final
"hearirig, C
'2... appeal is directed against the judgment and
C ~ a'zl1l§1l'(i~.lin MVC No. No.2008/2003 dated 2.8.2005 on the file
Vfthe 14"' Add}. Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes.
,._.l.»«-m--
»- 4715.:
Metropolitan Area, Bangalore. The appellant was the 2""
respondent in the claim petition and respondents~2 to 4
were the petitioners and the 15′ respondent is the owner. H
3. The only Submission of the learned cour15–‘3ill.lt5l1″ .
appellant in this appeal is that siJr1.c,e_ there”‘a:rl:e_wv three it
claimants. the Tribunal was not justified ciedu f :1 s it
of the income towards personal’l_e::pensles. of
On the other hand, the to ldedfiucted
1/3″ of the income of towards ‘personal
expenses while detennining
4. Peijusal and award shows that the
Tribuna’l*~ hasllltalgperi salary of the deceased for the
«purpose detemiination of the loss of dependency. The
of SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS vs.
DELHI TR@I–ShORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
1298) has held that after deducting the tax paid
‘ p:.’by’thel:l.deceased, gross salary should be taken into account
ll foralthe purpose of determination of compensation. The
E
1
vi