AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Learned Counsel has filed a memo for dispensation of notice to respondent No. 1, as the liability of respondent No. 2 is not in dispute. Hence, notice to respondent no. 1 is dispensed with.
There is a delay of 45 days in Tiling the appeal. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.
Appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,14,000/- with interest.
Claimants are wife, three minor children and aged parents of the deceased. Deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 24.2.2007. It is stated that, he was a contractor, earning Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. Ex. P10 is the certificate produced to show that he was also a mason. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and giving 1/4th deduction has awarded compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 4,59,000/-.
Whether the deceased was a contractor or not, but the certificate issued by the Tahsildar shows that he was a mason in 2007. A mason in Mandya district cannot be said that his earning could be less than Rs. 5.000/- per month. Taking Rs. 5,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, giving 1/4th deduction and applying ''17'' multiplier, as the deceased was 27 years at the time of accident, claimants are entitled for Rs. 7.65,000/- (Rs. 3,750/-x12x17) as against Rs. 4,59,000/- i.e., additional Rs. 3,06,000/- towards loss of dependency.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Claimants are entitled for Rs. 3,06,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest.