AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellants are the legal heirs, being the widow, two minor children and mother of one Suresh Kumar who lost his life in a road traffic accident which occurred while the bus which he tried to board, was moved negligently by the first respondent driver and he was thrown out resulting in a head injury which ultimately lead his death. The grievance voiced by the appellants is that the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation for the death of Suresh Kumar. They claimed a total amount of Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation under various heads. The learned Tribunal under the impugned award allowed them only Rs. 3,91,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum. According to them, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is quite inadequate.
We have heard the submissions of Mr. C. Unnikrishnan, the Learned Counsel for the appellants and those of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company. The submission of Mr. Unnikrishnan was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Drawing our attention to Ext.A8 certificate issued by Aradhana Cinema, it was submitted by Mr. Unnikrishnan that Ext.A8 will show that the appellant was a permanent employee of the above cinema drawing a salary of Rs. 4637/- per mensem. Considering the future prospects in the career of the deceased, the learned Tribunal should have adopted at least Rs. 6,000/- as the monthly income for determining the dependency compensation, but the Tribunal adopted only Rs. 2,000/-. According to Mr. Unnikrishnan this adoption of income is too low. Mr. Unnikrishnan also submitted that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded under all the other heads.
Per contra, it was submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company that there is no such inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads. Ext.A8 was not properly proved.
Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully gone through the impugned award, we see inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the appellants.
According to us, the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- adopted notionally by the learned Tribunal is too low. We adopt Rs. 3,000/- as the monthly income which was derived by the appellant from his employment Aradhana Cinema. At the same time, we find force in the submission of the learned standing counsel that the correct multiplier which could be adopted was 15 and not 16 adopted by the Tribunal. When the dependency compensation is recalculated adopting the correct multiplier and the revised multiplicand, it will be seen that the appellants are eligible for a further amount of Rs. 10464/- towards dependency. We award that amount to the appellants. It was not an instantaneous death that the deceased died. He died after suffering excruciating pain and agony for 5 days. We award Rs. 10,000/- more towards pain and suffering.
According to us, the amount presently awarded towards loss of consortium for the young widow is inadequate. We award Rs. 20,000/- more towards loss of consortium.
We find gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded for loss of love and affection for two minor children and aged mother. We award to them Rs. 25,000/- more towards loss of love and affection.
The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses as well as towards transportation. We reckon the above sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation awarded towards funeral expenses. Towards transportation, we award to the appellants Rs. 2500/- more.
We find that medical bills showing a total value of Rs. 16,000/- was produced by the appellants. The learned Tribunal did not award them any compensation towards medical expenses. We are convinced that during the five days of hospitalisation prior to the death of the deceased, the appellant had to spend at least Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses. We award to the appellant Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled get a total amount of Rs. 1,76,564/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Four only), over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This additional amount awarded shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. However, we clarify that during the period of 661 days by which the filing of the appeal was delayed, the additional compensation awarded by us will not carry any interest.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.