RAJ RANI Vs. PAUL GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 6.2.1998 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,63,620/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

(2.) The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 10 in the facts and circumstances of the case. This case pertains to the year 1992 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on the statute books. The said schedule came on the statute book in the year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas held the field. In the said judgment it was observed by the Court that maximum multiplier of 16 could be applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the II schedule has risen to 18. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 47 years and he is survived by his widow and eight children. Taking a balanced view of the said Apex Court s judgment and the IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, in the facts of the present case I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased the multiplier of 12 would be appropriate. Therefore, the award is modified in this regard.

(3.) On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in awarding a small amount of Rs. 5,000/- compensation towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of estate. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs. 40,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the appellants due to the sudden demise of their only son and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not conventional heads of damages.