IN mm H191! comer or mnrurrum
cmcvrr amen Arnmmm '% 1' V
msmn mxs 'mm: mm mm or mnnuagin. 3 %
nmvonnfl
mm Hozrnm MR. Jus11cm§;'e. 3025.333" V %
M.F'.A. No. 141s§Vmoo7azm
BETWEEN:
VEERESHA§5P!:'..;_SAJ.3AN «-
s/ Q PAMPANNM*fi; 'SAJ-JAN
AGED A303'? 4;: YEARS',-__QC(1_: AGRICULTURE
R/OW-.SIDD£xPUVR.,:'TQ;».GI3:NGAVATHI
SMT NAGAMMA W30 .VE!§RESHAPPA SAJJAN
AGED ABOUT 37.y:a-mes; occ: HOUSEHOLD
R;/'O SIDDAPUR'; TQ: GANGAVATHS
APPELLANTS
"'-{zs?_y" 3 :B:"E3j§i';5§'R.f§IABASAWA, ASV.)
_A;PlD."'*--
T MEHABOOB PAS}-IA S/O RAJASAB
' MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF TEMPOR EACI-{ER
" ._B__.£;AR$NG REGNO. AP-22/U-2980
R/O NEAR RB. CGLLEGE
KADARGUND, RAICHUR
NISAR AHMED S/0 LABLY MASAK
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF 'PEMPOR EACHER'
L
fl
2
BEARING REGNO. A?-22/U-2980
R/O I:i.NO. 12-12-18/B, LAAL. PAHADI
ARAB MOI-IALLA, RAICHUR
3. ms DIVISIONAL MANAGER -- I :
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY L'I'D.,
coum ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND *
EDIGA COMPLEX
BELLARY
4. G SHANKARSINGH s/o G RAMASLTNGHM _ A '
AGE: MAJOR, occ; owwm op BEJAJTEMPO * _
BEARING Ngcmo. KA-48/M210 '
R/G KAMPLI, TQ: mspm' ' _
5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE 'GRIENTAL'Ei%JSURANCE CQMPANY I..TD.,
DmsIoNALQF_FI'ft1 }c of the son of the claimants in
on 06.09.2006, the MAC'? has
Vj'Aag%%'cammnmmn of Rs.3,10,000/~ with interest.
Ofit the, 'amount a sum of Rs.2,7{),O0{)/~ is awarded on
the 116313 Vloss of dependency.
4. The icamed Counsel for the appellants whikc seeking
ufenhancemcnt of the compensation would contend that the
MACI' was not justificd in reckoning the income of the
$
'3.
4
deceased at Rs.3,000] - per month despite the salary certificate
being pmduced indicating" that the income of the deceaeed by
Way of salary was Rs.2,000] - per month and in mg'
same, he was getting Rs. 100/--- as batta.
contended that even the deduction ,erAT ae_xna§ie 'is
erroneous and in the instant case,
been 1 I 3"' ané as such the 'ceinpeneaficn be'
enhanced.
" " the respondents would
contend was jusfified in awarding the
compensation’ the manner in which it has done. It is
‘V V’ on noticing the sahry certificate has
‘Vic Vecncligsion that the same has not been proved and
as. wage paid to a cleaner has been considered__
the does not call for enhancement. With regard to
‘}j::eV§ieduc1ion, it is contended that even. in the Latest decision of
Hoxfbie Supreme Ciourt, it has been stated that in the
‘éeeafrsence of evidence, the normal procedure to be followed is to
deduct 50% in respect of the bachelor.
«.4
6. In the light of the rival contentions, a flit
papers would indicate that the deceased V.
who was aged 21 years was working 9.3
the wages, no doubt, the sa]a:y4__oerEifi-cots L.
issued by M/S Sridhar ‘I’I’a.vcls”9{i¢r.€V:§’ aVi1d. §naVrked as
Ex.P11 which indicates ,. ?R’s;.2,O(‘)V(V}”/?AVVtvas being
paid as salary and Rs. rightly noticed
by the MAUI’, me’ in accordance with
law. the fact that the
which period there was
{fie all categories and in respect
of a Cloanef %;i1:1(V:ludiVnv.g well as the Wages, it would not
v 3;}: c:i¢§:s§i§e a «Rs. 130/ – per ciay is reckoned. If that
income wouid be in a sum of Rs.3,900/–~.
I1:.1So&fa::’ V%:1Vé’cluction, the Law laid down by the Hon’bk3:
‘suproixzg is that there can be no bani and fist ruke with _
” oedtiction and the same would have to be oonsidcrcd
cases.
7. In the instant case, it is seen that even
claimants and the deceased were living in a rural %
that the father is e-ne of the c1a1m’ ants would ..
second claimant-mother would ha!-fe ettjitfieiientéi A’
father also and only additional income’ 01′ the son:
In a fact of the present natuIe,””t1:i:e.dedue:iene of the
income made by the {;’T_is the me is to be
deducted in the present caee.I.’ ‘V .jt1’n1’a.t be so, the loss
of dependency euintvof 123.1950/-. If
the sameflis _1’.he multiplier of 15 as adapted
by the said of loss of dependency,
the c1ai5r1ants4″4″weuIdh»”be”- entitled to a sum of R’s.3,51,000/-
3 of Rs;2;’7*i);t)0o/ -.
t ‘ the claimants] appellants would be entitied
the difieficnee of Rs.81,00Q/- by way of enhancement. 0;}
, intifier heads, the MAC!’ has awarded appropriate
…_”vee-Inipeneation. Hence, a sum of Rs.81,{}()O/- is payable with
V téinterest at 6% 13.21. from the date of the petition till realisation.
The enhanced portion of the amount shall be deposited by the
i
u’
a
3rd mspondent-Insurance Company Within a Jsiix
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of tI3jsMo.1Ei:_ie:.1f.’
deposit, thc same shall be mlcased ‘– V A’
in terms of the above, the’ of
no order as to costs.
Wf _ %” f}LIudge