RATHNAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA Vs. C PALANIYAPPA ANNANAGAR KASPAPETTAI, ERODE TAMILNADU, THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD V.V. ROAD MANDYA, SUBBANNA S/O MADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submits that though deceased was an agriculturist -cum -milk vendor aged about 38 years, the Tribunal has fixed the income at lower rate of Rs.1,500/ - per month. He prays for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondent -2 -Insurance Company submits that Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and there is no good ground for enhancement.

(3.) CLAIMANTS are wife and minor daughter aged about one year. The parents of the deceased Mahadevappa were made as respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, respondent No. 3 - father of the deceased Mahadevappa died. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/ - per month and deducted a sum of Rs. 500/ - towards personal expenses of the deceased and token loss of dependency at Rs. 1,000/ - per month and applied multiplier 14 and awarded compensation as under" <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2423_TLKAR0_2012(1).html</FRM> 5. The accident occurred on 15 -3 -2002. Keeping in view the accident occurred in the year 2002 and wage structure of the coolie, we fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/ - per month. The deceased was 38 years old. In view of the ratio laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 since the deceased had four dependents, we deduct l/4th of the income towards personal expenses. The loss of dependency comes to Rs. 27,000/ - per annum. There is no proof to show that the deceased was admitted to the hospital and incurred medical expenses. Therefore, we are not awarding any amount towards medical expenses. In our view, the claimants are entitled for compensation as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2423_TLKAR0_2012(2).html</FRM> Thus, the claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 2,73,500/ -. It is made clear that though the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7% p.a., insofar as the additional compensation is concerned, the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. only. 6. In the result, we pass the following order: