IN THE mm: COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA_1,g:§;e,§~;T..,_
DATES Tats ‘THE sth DAY 0? JANUARY ;;I J _
BEi«'{)I€E
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTKEE A:-s’E,d’Pg:i§NA” « T
MISf;3ELI.ANEOI_iS FIRST APPEAL N’Q:”a7o1,:L2é§>f(M\f; V
BETWEEN ;
RUKUEVIIM 0
Wit} LATE CHANDRAPPA ~
AGED 58 YEARS, -.
RXAT $123 KRIPA ‘
DGOFE :~zo,1-1–2<:»s:':')', I
KUNJIBE'1"f'U . _ "
Um.:P1’mLu1¢;;” ‘ A?-“PELI.AN’}’
(By Sri: “HA1’Ai=:m: Eé;L:{AL:.4’A1jii..§.’F¢R
Sri: KISHORE sHErrg;’–Apv=.)
AND :;’ ~
1 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
» ” -» _ £§’AVSIKJ’s..CiiAMBERS,
”I~”:,V_c::-_~’;’N1_’I2_jz»xI. MARKET.
‘ …V%:sa;s;=€<3a'~.L
S,*.oi-HA..J1 ABDUL KHADER,
~ : AGED ABOU’I’71YEA.RS,
_ “~:«:.M. HOUSE,
‘ * “K0’i’EKAR POST AND VILLAGE,
MANGALORE TALUK. RESPONQENTS
‘ ‘ A ” W( B’y Sn: 8 C SEETHARAMA RAD, ADV. FOR R1}
3.»
‘ms AF’PEAL is FiLED we 17311; 0;? MV ACT, Arsgmsw
THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATEE! 11.09.2006 P5ssEDtj’*stNvv..
MVC No.549/2004 an THE FILE or ADDXTIONAL CNIL ‘JI;_}D_GE3, %
(sR.m.) & MACT, UQUPI, PAR’I’L’f AL§.OWiNG -THE .(:LAIM : ‘
PETITEON FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHAv§CE3MENP”‘
CJF COMPENSATION.
This Appeal eemm g on for
Court made the following :
JUDGM£f.j_IE’3’Tu_
The appellant/clai1n;§i§¥;tAi:;3_ C-curt sacking
enhancement of the ‘fiat V the sum
awmtiexi by t1;é_’:vfirI;%ii§r £;<::cit3;:un;ts.:_C]aA 'A ia+;*fibunaL Udupi in
we N¢,v549,1A6'4;tt–v%V_tVV_7, t
12; That' to the aocidclzt having occuned
. fin thév of the $012: of the claim' am: am not
The only aspcttt an which the mattcr
by this Court is with Icgani to the
compensation: awarded. 0:: this aspect aiao, the
tguestion that is to he considctxw by this Court: is: with
V. to the salanr rsmkozmd by thc MAST finer the purpose of
ealculafion. In this regard the oontcntiezm of the claimant
.L
4'
4
bcibrc the MACK’ was that the dmcascd was _
holder and was Working in the United –
and was eaznmg a sum of Rs.3,3Cfb/”P35
regard, the document at E::._P8 1iirafiW. fiie
employer was alsa cxaminexi as a»” has
however rejected the ‘}Vi§:is”i¥:cko.11ed
the salaxy of R$.200(}/- assigned by
the Tribunal 1a§.A:za5%;::wj+she bear the 53:23} of
the eInp1oyc:r”V2flf1€1 not been produced.
01:: a of the: entin: momtls
would the fiact that the deceased
was 1gr.f”.’23r1LA:;i11g”.V 21:55″ 8 and was a diploma ilflldfiil’
. V. °<:a1;1i:'m€i be ci"14;~x1;ut1::c1 wW'I'A}v::e only aspect is with regard to the
claimant in any evcmt had made the cfibrt
of' employer who has also statzed with mgatl
the 'vsgfidity of the ccI1::hca' " te. Though in tin: tr:(:hnn3al'
the said document coulaé not have, men accepted, than
faét that even a Goalie during that periocl wcould have earned
u substantial amotmt cannot be igzrxomd. Thcmibm, when
J:
v
there was same material 011 1120016 to inditnate with
the nature of employment and also an efibrt 1 ”
salary, the Tribunal was not jusfificd u u
of Rs.2,000j – per month and thazeafif
and calculating the compcnsaifqir of * L’
loss t;v:fdcpe.n(iea<;2y amotgnting tQ..l§s.2,8§,O0Gi E
3. In this reganzi, I5 that even on
conservative cgtiii-:gL£i;, tfayz would have
to be ifié, per month and after
dcduciioii pf 9n¢§«fi1ij§:j. the personal expenses, the
‘{‘”I”It3. l(.53s oi’ dependency per month at
‘ ‘~ ,.¢g$- virmfld be calculated by aggiapting the very”
V by the MAC? except the amount
If that is dune, tha coxnptzmsatitztn payable
winder head loss of ciepcndency wouid he in a sum of
as against the sum ofRs.2,88,I}OG,i- awaztlcd
by}? the Tribunal under the said head. I111 Inspect cf the athar
heacis s:i3:1<*:e the Tribunal has awaxticd convenfional
Jo
amounts, the Sfillfttt dues not call £31' any 1 V'
to the extent of the enhancement Iziadt: {iii x
1035 of dependency, thc award
Izilsuranctz company shall pajf §T:Iif;: of: the " L'
amount with interest at fig: 11'}!
payment within a ihg date of receipt
cxfa copy ofthis Qrdcr. Vv : ' . V
of in the
above tcllrxsigitiv. £19 ofrler
Sdl
Iudge