Shiny Mathew and Others vs Sisupalan and Others

Ramakrishna Pillai,.J.

The appellants are the unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of one Jaimy Mathew who met with his death in a road traffic accident on 29/9/1999. Allegedly while the deceased was riding a motor cycle, he was hit down by a Maruti car driven by the first respondent. Allegedly the accident occurred while the maruti car was overtaking a KSRTC bus proceeding ahead. The deceased was attempting to enter a pocket road on the right side. The learned Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the car driver (R1) and the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus, their contribution being 3:1. Against the claim of Rs. 7 lakhs, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,61,000/- under various heads. The adequacy of compensation is under challenge in this appeal.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company and the Learned Counsel for the respondent - K.S.R.T.C. We have also perused the impugned award.

Allegedly the deceased was a wiring contractor aged 34 years at the time of the accident. According to the appellants, the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- . The learned Tribunal for fixing the dependency compensation adopted the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 2,000/- which according to the Learned Counsel for the appellant is too low. We notice that the accident was in the year 1999 and the deceased was aged 34 years. So presumably the deceased might have earned at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- by engaging himself in any job or profession. As the deceased was only 34 years old, the correct multiplier applicable to the age group is 16. One-third of the income has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . When the dependency compensation is recalculated as above it will come to Rs. 3,20,000/- and as the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,43,000/- only as compensation for loss of dependency, the appellants become entitled to receive an additional sum of Rs. 77,000/- as dependency compensation.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the death occurred while the deceased was being taken to the hospital. Towards compensation for pain and suffering, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- . We are of the view that some more amount could have been awarded towards pain and suffering and thus we are awarding an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering.

It is seen from the award that no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of estate. Thus we are awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate.

Towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2000/- - has been awarded by the Tribunal. We are awarding an additional sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a global sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. We notice that the first appellant who is the widow, who aged 29 years and the minor children were aged 5 years and 4 years at the time of the accident. So in addition to the amount already awarded under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, we are awarding Rs. 10,000/- under those heads.

Thus in total the appellants will get a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) over and above what was awarded by the learned Tribunal. The additional amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

The liability to pay the amount awarded shall be shared by the third respondent and the 5th respondent in the ratio 3:1. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.