AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.—This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati, in O.P. No. 263/1988, dated 30-4-1992 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,42,000/- with interest.
It is no longer in dispute before me that on 30-4-1988 at about 8 a.m., when the son of the respondents was going on his cycle, the Driver of the lorry bearing No. AAK 1810 dashed his cycle near Jyothi Talkies due to which the deceased received severe injuries and died instantaneously.
The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence on record, found the annual dependency at Rs. 6,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 22 years, applied the multiplier of 20 and found that the respondents were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- in addition to Rs. 20,000/- under the heads'' pain and suffering'' and loss of estate as also Rs. 2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Thus, it assessed the total compensation at Rs. 1,42,000/- including the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under no fault basis which amount had been already paid to the respondents and thus awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation or payment.
The Insurance Company has challenged the amount of compensation on the ground that the age of the parents should have been taken into consideration at the time of working out the multiplier to be applied. The claim for funeral expenses should not have been allowed and that the claim for pain and suffering of the respondents due to the death of their son should also not have been awarded.
On perusal of the judgment of the lower Court, I find that the age of the mother of the deceased was assessed to be 40 years and that of his father to be 44 years at the time of the accident. It is true that the age of the deceased was about 22 years but it is well settled that the age of the dependants should also be taken into consideration at the time of working out the multiplier. The lower Court should have taken into consideration the age of the parents and not of the deceased while fixing the multiplier and, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to apply the multiplier of 15 instead of 20. Thus, taking the multiplier to be 15, the dependency comes to Rs. 90,000/-. Because the deceased had met instantaneous death, the respondents are not entitled to any amount of compensation under the head pan and suffering. Similarly, they are not entitled to Rs. 2,000/- under the had funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation which appears to be just and reasonable comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Out of this amount, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have already received a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus, they are entitled to claim an amount of Rs. 85,000/-.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified and it is ordered that the appellant and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the total compensation of Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation or payment less the amount which has been already paid by the appellant to the claimants. No costs.