Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In support of the said contention, learned Counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007 AIR SCW 1962 and the reported, decision of a Division Bench of this court in Smt. A Manavalagan v. A krishnamurthy

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants seeks to support the impugned Judgment and Award as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. Learned Counsel 'hastens to add that there is no material on record to establish the amount the deceased saved every year, from out of the income.

Before proceeding to consider the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is useful to extract the relevant portions of the judgment in Manavalgan's case 2007 AIR SCW 1962 and Manjuri Bera (supra).

6. In Manavalgan's case the Division Bench while summarizing the principles enunciated thus:

(i) xxxx xxxxx xxxx

(ii) xxxx xxxx xxxx

(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased.

(emphasis supplied)

7. In Manjuri Bera's case, the Apex Court held thus:

16. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act, Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation,, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.