Annie and Others vs V.J. Xaiver, P.S. Shaju and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The legal heirs of a mason by name Sunny who lost his life in a road traffic accident caused by the driver of a bus which hit down a motorcycle in which late Sunny was riding complain that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation for the death of late Sunny. They claimed a total amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and the learned Tribunal under the impugned award allowed them only Rs. 3,64,000/- under various heads. According to the appellants, there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. We have heard the submissions of Sri. T.C. Suresh Menon, the learned counsel for the appellants and those of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

The argument of Sri.Suresh Menon was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas the argument of the learned Standing Counsel was that reasonable compensation is already awarded by the Tribunal and hence, there is no warrant at all for increasing the same.

We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have very carefully read through the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The deceased Sunny was evidently a mason. The learned Tribunal would adopt his monthly income notionally to be only Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. We are of the view that there is every justification for adopting the monthly income of Sunny who was admittedly a mason to be Rs. 3,500/-. We therefore, revise the multiplicand for the purpose of determining the dependency compensation. It is seen that the learned Tribunal adopted multiplier of 17. This in our view is incorrect. The proper multiplier to be adopted was 16 only as per the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802 SC). We are not impressed by the argument of Sri. Suresh Menon that the proper deduction to be made towards personal expenses of the deceased was one fourth, as there is no evidence to hold that the parents of late Sunny were dependent on him. When we re-calculate the dependency compensation adopting the revised multiplicand and multiplier it will be seen that the appellants are eligible for award of a further sum of Rs. 1,76,000/- towards dependency. We award that amount to the appellants towards dependency.

We find inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under a few other heads also. According to us, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as loss of consortium for the widow who was very young when she lost her husband is insufficient. We award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more towards compensation for loss of consortium.

Similar inadequacy is noted by us in the compensation for loss of love and affection which was awarded by the Tribunal towards two minor children of the deceased. We award to them a sum of Rs. 25,000/- more towards compensation for loss of love and affection.

The compensation awarded under other heads according to us is reasonable. Thus the result is that over and above what is awarded by the Tribunal we award to the appellants a total amount of Rs. 2,06,000/- as additional compensation. This additional amount will also carry interest at the same rate as is awarded by the Tribunal in its original award. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified as above.