m mm men COURT or mmwraxa
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Present
1~1on'b1e Hr.Justice v.ao;91u.n. % 3 ' » T 7
And.
Iiomble nmamuca L. n:§'R.AYAm%sw&&"a'}V
M.F.A No.
_§.;___F_j_,_4___A,_,Ro.58A30_'_ A %
In MFA
Between: 1 E I' ' V' H
COMPANY LTD; V " _
REPR. BY DEPUTY "
RKALINGA RAQRGAD , '
BANGALORE ' '-
REPRESENTING NEW'-ENDIA
NEW INDiA.:ASSIti.AP ;A.N§'E'..:
*ASSURANCEV."E'.0';
Ami
:3::e:_A12fwA_p %_ ...A?PE1.i..AN'I'
" £35:VM]'s; 'B..C£$f§E'FfiARAMA mo ASSOCIATES)
' N.ETHRAsVAT}{i
wm NAGESH sum'
VQXNAND NAGESH SHE'?
13/0 VEERABHADRAPPA GOWDA
3" ' RAGHAVENDRA NAGESH SHE'?
MINOR, 137 RESPONDENT 13 THE
WIFE, 2″” as 3*” RESPONDENTS ARE
CHiLDREN OF DECEASED
Vi%,a//
%% A’ :3 ’31~ :’R;aGHAvEN15§§A’M6335 SHET
NAGESH SHET, R3 IS MINOR
REJPR. BY R1 &. ALL ARE R/A
GANDHI NAGAR,
am moss LAXMINAGAR ‘
KUMTA
4 PARAMESHWAR BHARAMAHNAVAR’ _
BELGAMKAR *
R/A NEHRU NAGAR POST
ALNAVAR %
£3131′. I.’)HARWAD”‘– ~ .. ‘.-.;._RESPONDEN’l’S
(By Sri P.MOGALi–ADV ‘FOR R1 ”
in MFA ., ‘
1 :.§ErHtéAirfATH z%%NA§§:asH SHE’?
W/_()’ NAGEr3H..SHE”‘P__
2 ANAi’m %NA<§;;:Sr:_ S§+f?§."r
3/Q LA'£'E"NA'GESH sun:-:1'
" » $10. LA_Ti*e.__ NAGESH SHET
r..y:;._,«a1::. R30
– “1.,%’GAr¢§B§iigN’AGAR,
‘ 5111. mass LAXMINAGAR
TQAKUMFA
13:31:’ U’I”I’AR KANNADA …AP’PELLAN'{‘S
°’_{By Sri P.G.MOGALI-AI)V)
1 PARASHURAM BHARAMANNA
BELGAMKAR
OWNER OF’ GOODS TRIJCK
N0. KA~25] 7476,
R/A NE!-{RU RAGAR POST
ALNAVAR
DIST. DHARWAD
reported in ILR mos KAR 3809 (U!IIO!I'{) E ‘ mIA Vs.
x.s.LAmHm mmnm. The the
multiplier 8 to the m1fl§iplican’ci*’»
compensation under the bf °’i9.’s$ “of -i
In View of the t3’3.é’ * the
deceased was $0 less, the
loss of dependéiagy -on the lower side. The
same ito ‘fly applying thfi proper
multiplier applied by the
of Division Bench decision of this
– is right but the age of retirement
13 as 58 years instead of 60 years.
‘ID’ has to applied to the mxxltiplicand to
at the amount of loss of dependency.
8. As per the salary oexfificatc Ex.P-4, the
H daoeased was drawmg a gross salary of Rs. £3,466] – per,
month. Out cf ntzis, Income Tax of Rs. 1000/- and
Pmfcssiona1″§’ax of Rs.I00/- per month have to be
PM
deducted. The loss of dependency would _x
12 = 1,61,592/— p.a. Out of
Rs.13,200/- is deducted, lie T
Rs.1,48,392/~–. If Rs.49,464/;el.l 1/3l’lx~;ggte’l oiflfctliafle’
annual income is
the resultant If this
amount is mulfipfied. ”10′ on the
basis of the total loss of
depeI}clel1cy’7e§”;Jl:l1.e to Rs.98,928 x 10 –~«
9,s9Q%80§ ”
‘9.u ‘Rs. under other conventional
headsLislatee_:V1eee, ere Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
w _ A~ towards loss of consortium. The
not awarded any amount under loss of
leee Eaflection, We award Rs.10,00G to each minor
AA and the widow. The sum of Rs.2,500/-
for funeral is very low and we enhance the
V .—ésame tn Rs.10,0®/~. Thus, in all the appellants-
claimants are entitled to Rs. 10,69,280 together with
interest at 8% per annmn as awarded by the Tribunal.
M
10. For the reasons stated;
M15300/2003 filed by ‘
dismissed and MFA 5320/2693 fixes: is
partly allowed. The judgaegt aha
is modified as indieated ‘The company
shall deposit the together with
interest vufourie of receipt of the
copy of ff V ”
of the year 2001 and
at ‘to 3 herein were aged 17 and
15 Ha may have attained majority. We direct
teHel’eA1)osit 50% of the amount awarded
interest on such amount in the
flames’ the appellants with liberty to them to
the periodioa} interest for their personal and
expenses. The bmance 50% shall he paid to
equally. The appellants are at liberty to withdraw
the deposit amount if need arises by filing application
fax
before the Tribunal, if such application is filed ._ u
shall be considered and dispflsed of on merits. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ M
MP-bpy23109 H