T.V. Patti Amma (Through P.A. Holder of T.V. Prabhakaran) vs A. Raveendran and Others

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The appellant is the aged mother of a 29 year old unmarried Medical Representative who met with his death in a road traffic accident occurred on 10/06/2000 while he was pillion riding a motorcycle which collided with a mini lorry coming from the opposite direction. Attributing negligence against the first respondent who was the driver of the mini lorry involved in the accident, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum against the claim of Rs. 2,63,000/- . In this appeal the appellant is challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded to her.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time. We have also perused the impugned award.

The main grievance voiced in this appeal is that the appellant is not awarded adequate compensation for loss of dependency. According to the appellant the deceased Vinod was a medical representative earning a monthly income of Rs. 7,000/- . Ext. A10 is the Salary Certificate and Ext. A11 is the certificate issued by his employer showing his conduct as well as his efficiency. The fact that the deceased was a medical representative by profession stands proved by the documents adduced by the appellant before the Tribunal. The deceased was only 29 years old at the time of the accident. Considering the age of the deceased as well as his avocation, we fix his monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- . As the appellant who is the aged mother of the deceased was 66 years old, the correct multiplier applicable to her age group is ''7'' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 SC). As the deceased was unmarried, one half 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-calculated as above, it will stand enhanced to Rs. 2,52,000/- . As the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under that head the appellant becomes entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- towards loss of dependency and we award that amount to the appellant.

Going through the other heads we notice that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate, pain and suffering, transportation expenses. However, we feel inadequacy in the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection. We award to the appellant an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- on this count.

Thus in total the appellant will be entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- . We notice that the total amount thus awarded will exceed the amount claimed by the appellant. But it is well settled as per the decision of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003 (1) KLT 115 SC) that in appropriate cases the courts are justified in awarding compensation more than what has been claimed in the claim petition. We make it clear that the additional amount awarded by us shall carry interest at the same rate awarded by the Tribunal in its award. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.