KARTARI DEVI & ANR. Vs. SABU & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of death of Pawan Kumar, who was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, which took place on 23.01.1998. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the impugned award granted a compensation of Rs. 2,51,800/ -. Initially the claim petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed. The said order was set -aside in MAC. APP. No. 162/2005 by an order dated 01.12.2009. In para 10 of the order dated 01.12.2009, it was held as under: -

(2.) THUS the Tribunal was directed to make an inquiry as to the quantum of compensation. The contentions raised on behalf of Appellants are as under: -

(3.) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana & Ors., : 2009 ACJ 2763 while relying on R. K. Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors., : 2009 ACJ 1924 and Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, : 2001 8 SCC 197, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,51,000/ - towards loss of dependency as taking a notional income at Rs. 15,000/ - per annum, Rs. 75,000/ - towards future prospects and Rs. 75,000/ - towards loss of love and affection. It is urged that thus the compensation in case of death of an adult cannot be less than the compensation awarded in respect of death of a minor. In R. K. Malik (supra) a tragedy occurred when a private Bus carrying school children fell into the river Yamuna on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. Without going into the merits as to the educational qualification and the performance of each of the child a compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/ - was awarded on the notional income of Rs. 15,000/ -. Grant of compensation depends on so many factors i.e. the deceased's income, the age of the deceased, the age of the claimants, etc. etc. There may be cases where there may not at all be the loss of financial dependency and compensation may be awarded only towards loss of estate (A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors., : I (2005) ACC 304). Thus, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that compensation of at least Rs. 3,75,000/ - is to be awarded in each and every case irrespective of its facts and circumstances. This contention does not hold much water.