AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The legal heirs of Sri. Chandrasekhara Pillai, an Ex-IAF personnel being his widow and three children, complain that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation for the death of Chandrasekhara Pillai which occurred as a result of road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the first respondent driver of an authorickshaw which was duly insured with the third respondent Insurance Company. They claimed a total amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs and the Tribunal awarded them only Rs. 1,78,000/- under various heads. According to the appellants, there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under almost all heads. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Anjal Vijayan learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not placing reliance on Ext. A7 certificate which will show that after his retirement from the Indian Air Force, the deceased was employed as an assistant technician in Binu Engineering Consultancy and was drawing monthly income of Rs. 5,500/- exclusive of other allowances. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal did not award reasonable compensation to the appellants under other heads also.
We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have very carefully read through the impugned award. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not awarded adequate compensation by the learned Tribunal. There is evidence to hold that the deceased was engaged even after his retirement from the Air Force. There was evidence to hold that the deceased was technically qualified. Even though Ext. A7 could not have been accepted in the absence of proper proof, we are of the view that the monthly income of Rs. 1500/- adopted by the learned Tribunal for determining the dependency compensation payable to the appellants is too low. We adopt Rs. 3500/- as the monthly income for the purpose of determining the dependency compensation. We also find that all the appellants were dependents of the deceased and hence proper deduction to be made from the income of the deceased is one forth. When dependency compensation is recalculated adopting the monthly income of Rs. 3,500/- and deducting one forth, the total amount to which the appellants become eligible towards dependency will come to Rs. 3,46,500/-. This means that we award to the appellant Rs. 2,14,500/- towards additional compensation on account of the dependency.
The death was not an instantaneous one. He died after 22 days. According to us, the appellants are eligible for the award of sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. We award that amount to the appellants towards compensation for pain and suffering.
We are surprised to find that the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of estate. We award to the appellants Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate.
Even though the deceased was in hospital for 22 days., the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation towards medical expenses. On a reasonable guess estimate we award to the appellant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for medical expenses.
Towards, by stander''s charges also we award Rs. 4,200/- calculating such charges at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day.
We do not find any adequacy in the compensation for loss of consortium awarded to the first appellant, the widow.
However, we are of the view that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded to the other appellants who are minor at the time of the death of their father. Hence, we award Rs. 15,000/- more towards love and affection. Thus in total, the appellants become eligible to get an additional amount of Rs. 2,53,700(2,14,500+20000+ 5000+10000+ 4200) over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. This additional amount will carry interest at the same rate as is awarded by the learned Tribunal.
The appeal is allowed and the award shall stand modified as above.