Samuel P.O., Kadayil Veedu, Kundara and Others vs Thousfeek. A., Athishya Mandiram, Njarayilkonam, Madavoor, Pallickal Attingal, K. Devarajan and The Manager, United India Insurance Company, Attingal

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellants, the legal heirs being husband, children and mother of a High School Teacher by name Aliyamma Samuel who lost her life in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the lorry which was duly insured with the third respondent Insurance Company complain that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation for the death of Smt. Aliyamma Samuel. Their claim as amended was for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs and the learned Tribunal under the impugned award allowed them only a total sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- under various heads. According to them, there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to them under almost all of the heads. M. A. C. A No. 1536 of 2005 -2-. We have heard the submissions of Sri. M.K. Chandramohan Das, the learned counsel for the appellants and those of Sri. P.V. Jyothi Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and also the learned counsel for the party respondents.

The argument of Sri. Chandramohan Das was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Counsel particularly argued that for determining the dependency compensation, the learned Tribunal adopted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,089/- only ignoring the fact that the salary revision was due and there was a sure possibility of the salary of the deceased increasing and the deceased ending up her career as a Head Mistress.

The arguments of Sri. Chandramohan Das were resisted by Sri. Jyothi Prasad who submitted that reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no justification for increasing the same.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have very carefully gone through the impugned award.

We are in agreement with Sri. Chandramohan Das that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the appellants. Dependency compensation was calculated by the learned Tribunal adopting the multiplier applicable to the age group of the first appellant husband. This was wrong. The proper multiplier to be adopted was the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased, which is 14. We also are of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in adopting only Rs. 4,089/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802 SC) we adopt the monthly income as Rs. 5,315/-. We are of the view that the above sum of Rs. 5,315/- can be adopted as the monthly income only during the first twelve years of the multiplier of 14 as the deceased would have superannuated from the service at the end of twelve years. For the next two years, we are adopting the notional income of Rs. 4,000/-. So also the proper deduction to be made is one fourth only as the appellant was survived by as many as four persons including the husband. When dependency compensation is re-calculated it will be seen that the appellants are eligible for an award of a further sum of Rs. 3,84,324/- towards loss of dependency and we award the above amount to the appellant towards dependency compensation.

Coming to the other heads also, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants towards pain and suffering is inadequate and therefore, we award Rs. 5,000/- more as compensation towards pain and suffering.

Towards loss of estate no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants. We award to the appellants a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards loss of estate.

The learned Tribunal awarded a global sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation. We reckon the above sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses. Towards transportation expenses we award an additional sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the appellants.

We find inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to the husband. We award Rs. 5,000/- more towards loss of consortium to the husband, the first appellant.

We find gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection to the children and to the mother of the deceased. We award a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection to them.

Thus in all the appellants are awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,21,324/- over and above what is awarded by the Tribunal. This additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the above extent.