As per Ex.A.6 salary certificate coupled with evidence of P.W.3, the deceased was earning gross salary of Rs.10,888/- per month as on the date of his death and he was aged about 45 years as evident from Ex.A.1 vis-à-vis postmortem report. If 30% enhancement is made to Rs.10,888/- , it comes to Rs.14,154/- . If 15% towards income tax is to be deducted, it comes to Rs.12,031/-. Even Rs.231/- is deducted towards Provident Fund and other compulsory deduction, if any, it comes to Rs.11,800/-. If 1/3 rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.7867. The appropriate multiplier from the age of 45 years as per Sarla Verma’s case (2 supra), is 13.5. After applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,74,454/- (7867 x 12x 13.5) besides loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-, loss of love and affection Rs.20,000/- and care and guardian of third claimant Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.14,19,454/- which is the just compensation. However, not entitled to interest but for from today on the enhanced amount.

MACMA 295 / 2016
MACMASR 46792 / 2010CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
ITHAM LAKSHMI @ GURVAMMA AND 2 OTHERS  VSSHAIK MOOSA AND ANOTHER



HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.6 of 2011 IN/AND M.A.C.M.A No.295 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
Heard. The delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to not entitled to interest on the enhanced amount.
2. The appeal is taken up for hearing. Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and the second respondent-insurer. The first respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal and even though impleaded in the appeal, the appeal against him was dismissed for default, which is no way fatal vide expression of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma And others [1] .
3. The main contention in the grounds of appeal is the Tribunal mainly erred in not awarding compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- , but for awarded an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- thereby it requires enhancement. As per Ex.A.6 salary certificate coupled with evidence of P.W.3, the deceased was earning gross salary of Rs.10,888/- per month as on the date of his death and he was aged about 45 years as evident from Ex.A.1 vis-à-vis postmortem report. If 30% enhancement is made to Rs.10,888/- as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2] , it comes to Rs.14,154/- . If 15% towards income tax is to be deducted, it comes to Rs.12,031/-. Even Rs.231/- is deducted towards Provident Fund and other compulsory deduction, if any, it comes to Rs.11,800/-. If 1/3 rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.7867. The appropriate multiplier from the age of 45 years as per Sarla Verma’s case (2 supra), is 13.5. After applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,74,454/- (7867 x 12x 13.5) besides loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-, loss of love and affection Rs.20,000/- and care and guardian of third claimant Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.14,19,454/- which is the just compensation. However, not entitled to interest but for from today on the enhanced amount. 4. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.6 of 2011 is ordered the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,50,000/- to Rs.14,19,500/- with interest at 7.5% however, not entitled to interest on the enhanced amount, but for from today till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ______________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J JANUARY 21, 2016 YVL HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.6 of 2011 IN/AND M.A.C.M.A (SR) No.46792 of 2010 Date: 21.01.2016 [1] 2002 ACJ 828 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.