in the absence of proof of earnings, minimum income at Rs.3,000/- per month to be taken and the date of accident is more than 7 years after the expression referred to supra, hence the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.3,700/- per month, therefrom 1/3 of the earnings has to be deducted towards personal expenses, since the claimants are 3 in number then it comes to Rs.2,467/- and from applying multiplier ‘16’ for the persons aged between 30 to 35 years, it comes to Rs.4,73,664/- (Rs.2,467x12x16). Hence, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,73,664/- towards loss of earnings. Apart from the loss of earnings, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards care and guidance to the claimants 2 and 3 each. In all the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.6,18,664/- is the just compensation to award.

MACMA 406 / 2016
MACMASR 34200 / 2011CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KATIKALA NAGALAKSHMI & 2 ORS  VSV.SURESH REDDY & ANR


THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
MACMA MP No.3676 OF 2011 IN/AND MACMA No.406 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants and also the learned counsel for the second respondent/ insurer. The first respondent even served failed to attend, taken as heard and perused the material on record and delay is condoned subject to not entitled to interest from the date of claim petition, but from today. Appeal is taken up for hearing.
02. The claim of the appellants that the deceased worked as a handloom weaver, earned Rs.7,000/- per month and also the deceased had own handloom unit, however the Tribunal did not believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 in this regard for no proof, taken the earnings at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. In fact, as per the expression of the Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [1] , in the absence of proof of earnings, minimum income at Rs.3,000/- per month to be taken and the date of accident is more than 7 years after the expression referred to supra, hence the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.3,700/- per month, therefrom 1/3 of the earnings has to be deducted towards personal expenses, since the claimants are 3 in number then it comes to Rs.2,467/- and from applying multiplier ‘16’ for the persons aged between 30 to 35 years, it comes to Rs.4,73,664/- (Rs.2,467x12x16). Hence, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,73,664/- towards loss of earnings. Apart from the loss of earnings, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards care and guidance to the claimants 2 and 3 each. In all the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.6,18,664/- is the just compensation to award.
03. Accordingly, and in the result, the MACMA MP No.3676 of 2011 is allowed and the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,61,000/- to Rs.6,18,664/-. The claimants are not entitled for the interest on the enhanced amount from the date of claim petition, but from today. No costs. 04. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. _______________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 28.01.2016 BV [1] AIR 2001 (SC) 3218

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.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

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.