The Branch Manager vs Hombalegowda on 10 November, 2010

kfififi-2: '.!¢£4§?fEOG8

as THE mcm COURT or 1<AR1m'ra.K.a. AT BANGmmes:%%yy%}%L %

mmn ms rm mm my or Havmumm,     %
namm   '  %%  % &
mm I-11~mLE MR JUSTICE L zwéaxjrséria  ' 

 

City Bkwck--1    % «
Kulmadi Bufldingi 

K.S. Ran Roar},   «   '

Raprmmtad   4- V

  
  =  

3-w
44} 45;. Raaiémlzy’

é 569 ‘<'-*1-'a5?

‘r3Yi’3 %
Aévz}

L’ i 4:. .. f Homhalgowda

317:: M
Agfi shunt 70 years

K

Appellant

MFA. Nan ‘¥4é.§&’2€X}3

2. Dewrafi
D1 (3 Hnmbalegowda

Agfi about 60 3.7%
Both are rwidents of

A.S Vma@
Kamxdwarmnmmst ‘
Hamlmre Hobli

N Tahxlk

3. Sri. K. Venugomla
RIO Na. 3520/ I .

Srixziw Temple Street”:

Tilak Hagar, Mysore

4.
S}’aLa’be ”

Fwd Cant:*a£rtor:_.fle. ” *
Subhash.£§agé:_,’K;R,__.._Fet

United

mam %

3 281-5-£4312,
%%%%%

. Respvsndents

for R1 and 122*.)
% Fm Appeal is mad under mtmn

~ -:fir¥.3f1}.,»of the” IE1? Ant what the judge.-nt and award dated

in MVC Na. 24-3[2fi on the file of the

cm :sR.m.-1.) and awe, Mater Aeciaem clam

– “H , awarding a. compexmtion of Ra.
V – with izrbermt at 6% RA.

appeal eeming on for Admisakzn rm day, the mar:
dglhmw the fafiewfig:

BEA 2-33:: ‘E445’-‘3’${}68

nlflflfii

Tim appeal by the irmuranca challenging the

and award passed. in ma: No mama dated

awarding :1 cmnpezaaafion of Ra. 4,98,{]00/-,

the aalary ofthe deceased at Rs.

&fl* f£ one to

salary cf the demand as gm
evidmxxse wm ptmduoed an A has. claim
made by the clawx’ tawaa V Work:ng’ as

mnsaits and égam m was Ra.
:ao.ooo;- 1:6 % it is aubmmed am in the
a{§ meta-Sal, taking sahry at

Rs.8V§Q(3O1i~ gs an

ccsunael for the rcapondant aubmxw

was about Ra.3D,,fiDG/- ‘£2:

Z 2 A ;- par month, since hswaa a contractor mosaic and

_V ‘at¢a_§_§§. cont:-actcr. The Trfmmal has eemmfiflnd an
V%”eir.?mr in wt taking the actual incnma and by talélg only

Rs.8,00<)[ –. A he submitted is dismiss this appeal.

1'

MFA Ha 144 Qffifi

3. Iham&dboththesidw.

4. It ‘3 mm that when a

respect of mwme, the claim ahoulciV}§a-._;guj;}po’iftae&_

‘Flam gmunci talwn 11$ that Ho
evidence produced to aubvatsiizfigté Ilmer thaw
mm’ mm mm’ we and

re:qLu1:m’ modxfica’ » be taken

R3.5,€¥JD[~ _ ‘:I.–‘§{:.’=.»V4,,<1t::t}/-, chm the ma:
amuunt –f9[%ju%3 ,2+,ooo/- tawarfls km of
Elm} mien and
%en1y&Ra.8,ooo1- in awarded which is

Zpvari to Rs.20,000}=-. Tawards love: and

VV tian c.Emman' 13 it is anlaarmd by another

3-. rwmt of the rzthex beads aompamataion

. . — ' am prepsr.

K

313.’. Ne. ?d4§f20CB

3. With mm cbwmations this 3W1 is
aibwed. Tm impugned judgm.ent m’1d awardare

6. Amoum m mpoaét bc mammm