AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. P. Mittal, J.—The appellant impugns the award dated 31.08.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 57,600/- was granted for the death of deceased Pakium, who was aged about 18 years at the time of the accident, which occurred on 19.12.1985. The Appellant''s case before the Tribunal was that the deceased was rendering domestic services to a person, who provided a servant quarter (in lieu of the services) and the rental value of the quarter was Rs. 800/- per month. By the impugned award the Tribunal believed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 800/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards her personal expenses and on applying the multiplier of ''9'' arrived at the dependency as Rs. 57,600/-. The Tribunal awarded a conventional sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses making the total awarded compensation as Rs. 59,600/-. The following contentions were raised on behalf of Appellant: -
(i) The income of Rs. 800/- taken by the Tribunal was too low and no deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been made.
(ii) The future prospects were not considered by the Tribunal.
(iii) The appropriate multiplier considering the Appellant''s age as 41 years was ''14'' instead of ''9''.
No evidence was led before the Tribunal as to the value of the servant quarter except the statement of Appellant before the Tribunal. The minimum wages on the date of accident were Rs. 414/- per month. Even if 50% increase was to be given on account of inflation, the dependency was to be computed as Rs. 621/-, which was much less than the amount of Rs. 800/-. Moreover, the compensation in respect of death of a person would not be admissible to the Appellant/ legal representative where he or she is not financially dependant upon the deceased.
In Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar & Ors., MAC APP. No. 601/2007 decided on 15.01.2001 this Court relying on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Chandi Rai and Another, held that when in a family of two members staying together, both were earning and had no dependents, the compensation is to be granted only under the head of loss of estate, which is to be taken as 1/3rd of the deceased''s income. It was held that no loss of dependency would arise in such a case.
Applying the said principle to the present case, the deceased''s mother was in government service and was not financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, the Appellant would be entitled to the compensation only to the extent of 1/3rd of the deceased''s income, which comes to Rs. 266/- (800/ 3) applying multiplier of ''14'' as per the Appellant''s age the compensation works out as Rs. 44,688/-. If I add a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection (considering that the accident took place in the year 1985 and the Appellant would be entitled to interest) and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs. 56,688/-, which is less than the compensation of Rs. 57,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded was not just and reasonable. The appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.