Sebastian and Others vs V. Krishnankutty, Sajeevan M.K. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

R. Basant, J.—Claimants are the Appellants. They include father aged 80 years and mother aged 66 years of a deceased person who at the time of his death on 22.10.2000 was aged 32 years. The other claimants are only his adult siblings. Against a claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,11,300/- as per the details shown below:

Loss of dependency

Rs.80,040/-

(2000x2/3x12x5)

Transportation charges

Rs. 2,000/-

Funeral expenses

Rs. 4,000/-

Damages to clothings

Rs. 250/-

Pain and sufferings

Rs. 5,000/-

Loss of love and affection

Rs. 20,000/-

Total

Rs.1,11,290/-

i.e., Rounded to Rs. 1,11,300/

The challenge is only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the Appellants want to mount against the impugned award, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is painfully inadequate and low. Deceased a 32 year old business man was allegedly having an income of Rs. 4,000/- per mensem. The Tribunal reckoned only Rs. 2,000/- as his monthly notional income. This is perversely low, contends the counsel. We find force in that contention. We are satisfied that a higher monthly income could safely have been reckoned even in the absence of any better evidence. Drawing inspiration from the statutory presumption of prudence available from 1994 under Clause 6 of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, we are satisfied that Rs. 3,000/- could safely have been reckoned as the monthly income.

Deceased was unmarried but considering the low total monthly income we are satisfied that deduction of only 1/3rd towards the personal income of the deceased does not warrant interference. Though, we would not have found fault with the Tribunal even if, it had taken one half as the permissible deduction for personal expenses of an unmarried deceased person, considering the low income, we accept that 1/3rd alone need be deducted as the personal expense of the deceased.

There is a challenge raised against the multiplier employed. The Tribunal had reckoned five as the multiplier. Claimants 1 and 2 parents of the deceased are shown to be aged 80 years and 66 years. There is virtually no material to indicate that Respondents 3 to 7 adult siblings of the deceased were dependent on him. Multiplier must in these circumstances be taken into reckoning, based on the age of the claimants 1 and 2. Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reveals clearly that persons aged above 55 years, five is the multiplier to be adopted. The Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier. Even though the amounts awarded under other heads are also challenged, we find no merit in the challenge raised on those grounds.

The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that Appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) as per the details shown below:

i.e., (3000x2/3x12x5 minus Rs. 80,040/-)

In the result;

a. This appeal is allowed in part.

b. The Appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs. Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) as shown above in addition of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal.

c. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.