Virupaxappa, Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary, Dept. of Mines and Geology and ors.

- [ n.k. patil and; h.s. kempanna, jj.] motor vehicles act, 1988 - section 166 - accident claim - judgment and award - claim for enhancement - assessment of income of the deceased -non-consideration of the relevant material -re-determination of compensation under relevant heads - held, the deceased was aged 28 years, working as helper cum operator drawing salary of rs.4,592/- per month as per the salary statement ex.p 13 issued by the employer pw-3. when such being the case, the tribunal -is not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only rs.3,0007- per month. hence, it is appropriate to re-assess the income of the deceased at rs.6,000/- per month - further held, since the deceased has left behind five dependents, 1/4,h has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. accordingly, after deducting 1/4'h (rs.1,5007-) from the said income, the net monthly income comes to rs.4,500/-. the proper multiplier applicable in the case, as per the decision of the apex court in sarla vermel's case (2009 acj p.1298) is, '17'. accordingly, compensation payable towards loss of dependency is predetermined at rs.9,18,0007-(i.e. rs.4,500/- x 12 x '17') as against rs.3,84,0007- awarded by tribunal. - compensation is enhanced to rs.9,78,000/- as against rs. 4,14,000/-. (paras 5,6) miscellaneous first appeal is allowed in part.ordermanjula chellur, j.1. heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. high court government advocate is directed to take notice to respondents 1 and 2 and mr. d. nagaraj is directed to take notice to respondent 3.2. on perusal of the records, especially annexure-d dated 23.9.2009, we note that the so-called permission granted to the private party who is made as respondent 5 in this proceedings, is only a provisional consent. it is issued to the 5th respondent to proceed with the formalities, namely to obtain necessary clearance from other statutory departments. he is specifically directed not to proceed with trial or regular production. in other words before commencement of regular production or trial, they have to obtain a separate consent of the board for operation.3. according to mr. d. nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent, as per the guidelines of the high court, issued in the case of obayya pujari v. member secretary : 1999 (3) klj 651 (db) which were confirmed by the hon'ble apex court, the last date for implementation is 7.4.2010. according to the learned counsel keeping in view the guidelines issued by this court, such consent would be issued to the party who approach them.4. the petitioners seems to be the owners of neighbouring land of the proposed unit of stone crushing to be set up by the 5th respondent. if they have any grievance, they are at liberty to approach the 3rd respondent bringing to their notice their apprehension of pollution from the so-called stone unit proposed to be set up by the 5th respondent. even otherwise, the order under challenge is an appellable order.with these observations, we dispose of the writ petitions.