Prasidha Rajiv, Sneha Rajiv, Represented By Her Next Friend and Mother, Prasidha Rajiv, The 1st Petitioner and M.P. Shreemathi vs C.M. Maharoof, Haneefa and United India Insurance CO.Ltd.

Ramakrishna Pillai, J

The appellants are the unfortunate widow, minor daughter and aged mother of a 39 year old man by name Rajiv who met with his death in a road traffic accident occurred on 16.11.2000. The deceased while travelling by a Maruti Omni Van, it collided with a lorry coming from the opposite direction. Against the claim of Rs.15 lakhs, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,70,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum attributing negligence against the second respondent who was the driver of the lorry. As the third respondent admitted the policy of the offending vehicle, they were saddled with the liability of paying compensation.

In this appeal, the appellants are challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded to them.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company. The impugned award was also perused.

The main grievance voiced against the award is that the appellants were not awarded adequate compensation for loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly relied on Ext.A15 salary certificate issued by the Globe Detective Agency (P) Ltd. where the deceased was working as a Regional Manager. As per the salary certificate, the total salary of the deceased in September 2000 is Rs.9200/- including basic pay and D.A. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- for awarding compensation for loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company would submit that the institution where the deceased was working is only a private firm and there was no guarantee that the deceased would have continued in that post for quite a long time. But the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the experience the deceased had gained would have lead to other employment opportunities even in the event of retrenchment by the company where he was working at the time of his death. Considering all relevant circumstances, we feel justified in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7500/-. The deceased was aged only 39 at the time of the accident. The correct multiplier applicable to his age group as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] is 15. As the claimants are less than `4'', one third 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 re-worked as above, it will come to Rs.9 lakhs. The learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.6,40,000/-. The appellant becomes entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency.

We notice that towards compensation for pain and suffering, the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/-. We award to the appellant an additional sum of Rs.5000/- under that count.

Towards funeral expenses, only a sum of Rs.2000/- is seen awarded. We award to the appellants an additional sum of Rs.3000/- towards funeral expenses.

Towards loss of estate also, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is low. As the award was only Rs.2500/-, we award to the appellants an additional sum of Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate.

We feel inadequacy in the amount awarded towards transportation expenses. Hence, we award to the appellants an additional sum of Rs.2000/-.

The first appellant, who is the widow, was only 31 years old at the time of the accident. Certainly, she is entitled to get a reasonable sum as compensation for loss of consortium. As the amount awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs.20,000/- we award to the first appellant an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- on that count.

The deceased was survived by a minor daughter who was only 5 years at the time of the accident. Towards loss of love and affection, no amount is seen awarded by the Tribunal. As the second appellant lost her father at a tender age, we award to her a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection. Thus, in total, the appellants become entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.3,22,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred only), over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal which will carry the same rate of interest as specified in the award.

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.