AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The appellants are the parents of one Muhammed Shiyas who met with his death in a road traffic accident on 29.6.1995. The accident occurred while the rear side of the bus by which he was travelling was hit by a lorry proceeding behind. The second respondent was the driver of the lorry. Attributing negligence against the second respondent, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,750/- as compensation together with interest at 7% per annum. This was against the claim of Rs. 4,50,000/-. As the 3rd respondent Insurance Company admitted the policy of the lorry, they were directed to pay the compensation. In this appeal, the adequacy of compensation is under challenge. We have heard both sides. The main grievance voiced against the award is that the appellants were not awarded adequate compensation for loss of dependency. The deceased was aged 19 at the time of the accident. For computing the compensation for loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal fixed notionally the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1250/-. As the accident was in the year 1995, we feel justified in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 1750/-. As the deceased was unmarried, we lean ourselves to the multiplier applicable to the age group of the mother, who is younger among the parents. The second appellant who is the mother was aged 42 years at the time of the accident. The correct multiplier applicable to the age group of the second appellant is 14. As the deceased was unmarried, one half of the amount has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive. When the dependency compensation is recalculated as above, it will stand enhanced to Rs. 1,47,000/-. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1 lakh, we award to the appellants an additional sum of Rs. 47,000/-.
The death was instantaneous. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7500/- as compensation for pain and suffering. As we feel inadequacy in the compensation awarded, we award an additional sum of Rs. 2500/- to the appellants towards pain and suffering.
We notice that towards loss of estate, only a sum of Rs. 2500/- was awarded. Thus, we award to the appellants an additional sum of Rs. 2500/-.
The learned Tribunal was miserly in awarding compensation for funeral expenses also. We award an additional sum of Rs. 3000/- under that head.
As we feel inadequacy in the amount awarded towards transportation expenses, we award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- more under that head.
Towards loss of happiness, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- which we reckon as the amount awarded for loss of love and affection. But we notice that the deceased was the only son of the appellants, as contended. The appellants are the parents and two sisters. As the first and second appellants have lost their only son in the accident, we are of the view that they are entitled to get some more amount towards loss of love and affection. We award a sum Rs. 18,000/- additionally under that head.
Thus, the appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 74,000/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand only), over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim petition stood dismissed for a period of 12 days and the learned Tribunal awarded interest only from the date of restoration. We are of the view that as the period during which the claim petition stood dismissed was only 12 days, the appellants are entitled to get compensation from the date of petition till realisation. The learned Tribunal has awarded only 6% interest. We make it clear that the appellants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount originally awarded as well as the additional amount awarded from the date of petition till realisation.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified as above.