AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant,J.
C.M. Appl. No. 1326 of 2007:
This petition is to condone the delay of 141 days in filing an appeal. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned.
Claimants are the Appellants. They claim compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of the death of their brother in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 24.09.2002. Against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 1,71,000/- as per the details shown below:
1.
Loss of dependency
: Rs. 1,44,000/-
2.
Loss of love and affection
: Rs. 10,000/-
3.
Loss of estate
: Rs. 10,000/-
4.
Transportation charges
: Rs. 1,500/-
5.
Damage to clothing
: Rs. 500/-
6.
Funeral and other expenses
: Rs. 2,000/-
7.
Pain and sufferings
: Rs. 3,000/-
Total
Rs.1,71,000/-
Challenge is only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge Appellants wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency was ascertained without due regard to the accepted principles. The counsel contends that at any rate the process of reasoning adopted by the court below is incorrect and unacceptable.
The Tribunal reckoned Rs. 2,250/- as the monthly earnings. The deceased was claimed to be an Electrician. He was an young man aged 32 years. He had qualification of S.S.L.C and ITI training as an Electrician. He was already included in the rank list of the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Cinema Operator and also as helper. The amount of Rs. 2,250/- was taken without any regard to all these circumstances, contends the counsel. We find merit in the contention. We are of the opinion that even in the absence of any better evidence Rs. 3,000/- could safely have been reckoned as the monthly earnings giving due allowance for prospective improvement in earnings also.
The Tribunal reckoned only 10 as the multiplier. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that going by the age of the deceased or the age of the claimants, the Tribunal erred in accepting only 10 as the multiplier. The deceased had no parents living. He was an unmarried person. The Tribunal took note of the circumstance, that it is unlikely that the deceased would have supported the claimants, his siblings for the entire period and that multiplier is to be taken in the case of persons on whom the dependent would have continued to depend for the entire period. All the claimants are siblings. They are adult siblings. One of them is an unmarried sister. All others are married and settled. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that adoption of 10 as the multiplier cannot be faulted. That appears to be a just and reasonable approach by the learned Tribunal.
The Tribunal reckoned 1/3 as the possible personal expenses of the deceased and then further reduced 20% there from. We find it easy to conclude from the totality of circumstances that it will be absolutely reasonable to reduce = of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The balance amount for a period of 10 years, we feel is the maximum period the claimants siblings could have aspired for.
We are in these circumstances satisfied that the Appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only) in addition to the amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as per the details shown below: i.e., Rs. 3,000/- x12x1/2x10=Rs.1,80,000/- minus Rs. 1,44,000/- i.e., Rs. 36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only).
We are not persuaded to accept that any further amount is payable on any other heads. In the result;
(a) This appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The Appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 36,000/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. This further amount shall also carry interest at the rates awarded by the Tribunal from the date of accident to the date of payment/deposits.
(c) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.