P.K.RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. ROY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased was travelling in an Omni van on 25.10.2009 when an accident occurred by reason of collision with a passenger bus. The negligence was found on the driver of the bus, which was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent. The appellants are the father, mother and two married sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal tried the claim with another claim, again of the legal heirs of one another deceased in the very same accident.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the income was taken only at Rs.5000/- when the claim was of Rs.10000/-. The deceased was a Goldsmith and PW-1, the owner of the jewellery in which the deceased was engaged as a permanent worker, was examined. PW-1 had deposed that he had been paying Rs.10000/- per month to the deceased. It is also contended that in adopting the future prospects 15% has to be paid since the deceased was a permanent worker. The multiplicand which was adopted by the Tribunal was 9, while the deceased, who was 32 years, should have been fixed with a multiplicand of 16.

(3.) Looking at the evidence of PW-1 it cannot be said that the same can be believed and that the income as asserted by the claimant has to be adopted. The Tribunal has noticed that even according to PW-1 he was employing six workers on the said salary, which itself would result in his spending Rs.60,000/- as salary per month. Nothing was produced to show that PW-1 was having income to that extent. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to believe PW-1 and fix a notional income as asserted by the claimants before the Tribunal. However, in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that a coolie is entitled to Rs.4,500/- per month. In such circumstances, the notional income can be fixed at Rs.7000/-. One-half of the income has to be set apart for his personal expenses, since he was a bachelor. For future prospects, 40% can be adopted, since the deceased was not a permanent salaried employee of age 32 years. Parents, appellants 1 and 2, are entitled to compensation for filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40000/- each, as has been held in Magma General Ins.Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram [2018 ACJ 2782]. As per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121 = (2010) 2 KLT 802 (SC)], the appellants 1 and 2 are also entitled to get loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-. The injured also had a period of hospitalisation of 12 days before death visited him and he is entitled to a higher amount for the pain and suffering.