Laila Beevi vs Shihabudheen and Others

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J—Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation the appellants have come up in appeal against the award of the Tribunal in O.P. (MV) No. 1383/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda. The appellant is the mother of the deceased Abdul Rahim, and he was unmarried. As compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,40,000/- with 7% interest.

Heard both sides.

The accident occurred on 7.3.2003. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has fixed Rs. 2,500/-as his monthly income even though, evidence was given to show that he was a Ayurvedic Physician. He seeks support from the entries in the FIR. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the above plea was not accepted by the Tribunal as there was no proof in support of the profession of the deceased.

We find from paragraph 8 of the judgment that the Tribunal did not accept the case in that regard and fixed the monthly income notionally at Rs. 2500/-.

The deceased was aged 28 at the time of the accident. The accident occurred in the year 2003. Even for persons engaged in manual labour, their income can be easily fixed atleast Rs. 4,000/- in the year 2003. Here evidence is not there showing the profession of the deceased. Therefore, since the accident occurred is at the young age of 28, we fix Rs. 4000/- as notional income for arriving at a just compensation irrespective of the profession of the deceased.

The Tribunal committed another error in adopting the multiplier based on the age of the parents.

Going by the judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 , the age of the deceased is the relevant one. Therefore, the multiplier will be 17. Accordingly, the dependency compensation will be Rs. 4000x12x17x1/2 = 4,08,000/-.

The Tribunal has granted Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering. Another amount of Rs. 5,000/- was granted for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection.

Even though, learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that the amount awarded is just, we cannot agree.

As far as pain and suffering is concerned, we grant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- even though, the death occurred on the same day, as he suffered very serious injuries. For funeral expenses we grant an amount of Rs. 25,000/-; Rs. 1 lakh is granted for loss of love and affection towards the mother who is the appellant herein. We grant another amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, we modify the award as follows:

Thus the total compensation will be Rs. 5,63,000/-. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of petition.

The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount less the amount already deposited within a period of three months. We direct the Tribunal to release the amount to the appellant herein.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The parties will suffer their costs in this appeal.