Singri Vs. Doddiah and anr.

- section 168; [ram mohan reddy, j] award of compensation under the head loss of dependency - legal representatives of the claimant were not dependent on the income of the deceased-finding of the tribunal awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency legality of- held, if the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased, compensation under the head loss of dependency cannot be granted. at best in such circumstances, a nominal sum as compensation towards loss to estate can be granted by applying an appropriate multiplier. further, where the claimants who are dependents of the deceased, claim loss of dependency and where the claimants who are not the dependents of the deceased claim only loss to estate. on facts, held, the claimants were not the dependents on the income of the deceased. therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation for loss to estate......the judge, court of small causes, bangalore, in mis. no. 231/49-50. an ex parte decree was obtained against the deceased father of the petitioner in s. c. 1335 of 1948-49, and after the death of father the petitioner has filed an application under order 9, rule 13, c. p. c. for setting aside the ex parte decree. petitioner is a minor and his mother is her next friend. the petitioner's contention is that the petitioner's mother came to know of the decree only when a notice was served on her in the execution case on 22-2-1950. the learned subordinate judge (court of small causes) has rightly come to the conclusion that the service on the petitioner's father was not sufficient and that the petitioner's guardian came to know of the petition within thirty days from the date on which the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed. but he has dismissed the petition on the ground that an application by a legal representative of a deceased defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed cannot be filled under order 9, rule 13, c. p. c. it is not clear why it is so. section 146. civil p. c. is as follows: 'save as otherwise provided by this code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken on application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him.'it is clear that, as stated in the section, it is a case where an application could have been made by the deceased father of the defendant and as such, the section authorises the petitioner who is claiming under him to make the application which could have been filled by his deceased father. if any authority is needed, i may refer to the decision in -- 'mst. deoki v. jugal kishore' , in which it is held that:'an application under order 9, rule 13 is not exempted from the general provision relating to procedure contained in section 146. a legal representative can therefore file an.....