AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B.Adi
Though respondent No. 3 is served and unrepresented, Sri.M.Narayanappa is directed to take notice for respondent No 3. Since there is no dispute as regard to the liability, notice to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.
There is a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned.
Appeal by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,54,088/- with interest. Unsatisfied with the same, claimants are before this Court.
Claimants are wife and children of the deceased. Deceased was doing contract work. He had income of Rs. 1.25,000/- per annum as per Ex.P20 - a profit certificate for 2007-08. He had received remuneration of Rs. 72,000/- in 2006-07. Further, he had an agreement with the Government for quarrying as per Ex.P14. Looking at these documents, it shows that the deceased was in business and had an earning, but one year''s remuneration was Rs. 72,000/-. subsequently he had income of Rs. 1.25,000/-, if the average is taken with other income, it could be taken at Rs. 9,000/- per month, by giving deduction of 1/3rd. the claimants are entitled for Rs. 7,92,000/-(Rs. 6,090/-x12x11) towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 7,04,088/- i.e.. additional Rs. 87,912/-. On the conventional heads, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal. 1 find that, another Rs. 10,000/- could be granted.
In all, claimants are entitled for Rs. 97,912/- rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
Sri. M. Narayanappa is permitted to file vakalath in two weeks.