‘..aJ
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the appeal papers.
3. The claimants had contended that the deceased
was working as Patakari (volveman) ‘in Sara’sWati”Li’ft Irrigation
Scheme at Mahishagal and in aidd__i_tior1iito. sarnegl*1e_Hwa,s also.:’
working elsewhere. in the absence, of acc..eptablé evidence
before the Tribunal with r._e_igard*i_to ithie”inco”me, the Tribunal has
come to the conclusion thatvieven in:,respecit=.of’icoolies the same
was being considering the
avocation of ithe–f_cl_aim’a’n.t ia:f1::1,irr1’7of il’§s.3000/– per month was
taken. that “p;f.oced1,ire4jvisiladopteid, considering the fact that
this Court has ‘Rs. 100/– per day in respect of a
coolie,_conside’i’ingthe avociation of the claimant it would have
beL..co1i:s.idered ai’Rs’;i2o/- per day. Therefore, the income
‘per in a sum of Rs.3,600/–. 1/3″‘ deduction
rnadefby th.eiT_i.’ibunal would have to be adopted in the instant
il’~.,_i’c,ase. The; appropriate multiplier is 13. The compensation
head of loss of dependency worked out based on the
parameters would be Rs.3,74,400/-. Since the Tribunal
l
«l
has awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/« under the said head, the
claimant would be entitled to the enhanced
Rs.86,400/~ under the said head. In additionito
awarded towards conventional heads a_”fdrti1e;1* sum ‘oft
Rs.20,000/~ is awarded.
4. Therefore, in all, erititled to
enhanced compensationotiifis.;ii,O§i4iOO_/’vvijvvith interest @ 6%
pa from the date of the pe.ti.t,ior1 realisation. The
Insurance Within a period
of six months. a copy of this Order.
On deposit, thei’a3?not;ritV’sha1’l. disbursed to the claimant.
5. In the appeal stands disposed of.
W No ordejr asrto costs… ¢ V
EL
3…; wag!
~¢r’1.r~ ,