Case: Shakuntala  Vs. Balkrishna

p.m. The respondent No.2 namely, the lorry owner contended that the deceased was working only as a office boy and was having a salary of Rs. 600/pm. To support his plea, RW1, the owner of the company was also examined. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on either side held that the salary of the deceased must have been around Rs. 1200 p.m. and by deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the monthly dependency of the claimants must have been Rs. 800/pm. Taking the annual income as Rs.the total compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,53,600/and an award was passed in favour of the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 81,600/under the heading loss of dependency. The judgment of the High Court is challenged before us.

Court's reasoning:
The Tribunal had considered the evidence in detail and came to a rational conclusion regarding the income of the deceased. The learned Single Judge without considering the evidence of RW1 simply brushed aside the whole evidence and accepted the statement of RW1 solely on the ground that the employer himself had spoken regarding the salary and it must have been taken as correct. This approach made by the High Court is not at all justified having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court on flimsy reasons, interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable.