AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—The claimant has preferred this appeal being not satisfied with the compensation awarded to the claimant in a sum of RS. 5,26,000/- on account of the death of her husband B.S. Sudheendra.
The claim petition was lodged by the Appellant in MVC No. 5403/05 on the file of MACT, Bangalore contending that her husband died in a road traffic accident occurred on 23.6.2005 at about 10.30 a.m. and that he was working as a Manager in Supra Engineering earning and sum of Ra 8,500/-. The Tribunal disbelieving the evidence of the Appellant and the employer who has been, examined before the court, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6000/- p.m. and considering his age applied the multiplier of 10 and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs,4,80,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs. 46,000/- under the conventionals heads. Being not satisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed.
The main grounds of attack of the Appellant before us is there was no justification for the Tribunal to disbelieve the evidence of the employer of the deceased and Ex.P7. Ex.P7 is a certificate to show that the deceased was getting a salary of RS. 8,500/- p.m. the employer has admitted before the Tribunal that he was not maintaining arty records to show that he was paying a salary of Rs. 8,500/- p.m. According to him, he was paying cash to the deceased. Even if he was in the habit of paying cash every month as salary it is in upon the employer of the deceased to take a signature cm the salary register on a revenue stamp, paper. When he says that he was not maintaining the salary register and there m nothing to show that deceased was getting a eatery of Rs. 8,500/- p.m. it is difficult to believe the evidence of FW2 and Ex.P7.
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion the Tribunal is justified in considering the income at Rs. 6,000/-p.m. and awarding compensation. In addition to that we have also noticed that under conventional heads only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has to be awarded. In the instant case more than RS. 40,000/- in awarded. Similarly, instead of multiplier of 9 the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10 Viewed from easy ankle, it is not a case where this Court been enhance the compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.