For vs For
2022 Latest Caselaw 424 Tri

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                         MAC App 2 of 2022

For Appellant(s)                   : Mr. G. S Das, Adv.
For Respondent(s)                  : Mr. P S. Roy, Adv.

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                                ORDER

07.04.2022

Heard counsel for the parties.

[2] Mr. G. S. Das, counsel for the insurance company has made

his submission before this court on the point that the deceased being

the bachelor, only 50% of his personal appearance has to be deducted

in the light of the Sarala Verma's case reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

[3] Secondly, Mr. Das, counsel for the insurance company has

submitted with regard to the income of the deceased as a driver, the

trial court has considered notional amount of Rs.12,000/- without giving

proof any salary certificate. No evidence has been adduced to that

effect and the notional amount fixed is unreasonable according to Mr.

Das, counsel for the insurance company.

[4] Thirdly, it has been also submitted by the counsel for the

insurance company that the father of the deceased being a government

employee was not dependent at the time of death of the deceased.

Subsequently the father is retired and therefore he is not entitled for

any amount.

[6] To rebut the said submission, Mr. P S Roy, counsel for the

claimant respondents seeks time for making his submission on the

strength of supreme court judgments.

[7] List the matter on 11.04.2022 at the request of the counsel

for the claimant-respondents.

JUDGE

Dipak