E CHANDRALEKHA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANTS are the appellants. They are, wife aged 30 years, two minor children aged 7 years and four months and parents aged 65 and 68 years respectively on the date of the petition who claimed a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of a motor accident which took place on 1.5.1997 in which the deceased suffered injuries and succumbed to such injuries. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,11,500/- as compensation as per the details given below: 1. Loss of dependency (16000x17) : Rs.2,72,000/- 2.Loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner : Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of estate : Rs. 5,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000/- 5. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 10,000/- 6. Transportation expense : Rs. 2,000/- 7. Funeral expense : Rs. 2,500/- ----------------------- Total Rs.3,11,500/- ==========

(2.) THE challenge is directed only against quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants challenges the impugned award on two specific planks. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency and loss of consortium are too low and painfully inadequate.

(3.) WE have considered all the relevant inputs. The presumption of prudence about the probable income of a bus driver in the year 1997 has to be drawn by us. WE do take note of Ext.A4 and the oral evidence tendered by PW2, the employer who issued that certificate. WE find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that implicit reliance cannot safely be placed on all such evidence of employers or certificates issued by him. WE do take note of the irrefutable circumstance that the nuclear family of the deceased, his wife and two minor children were depending on such income of the deceased to keep body and soul together- not to speak of the father and mother of the deceased. WE can also safely take note of the presumption of prudence drawn by the legislature in Column 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act whereunder as early as in the year 1994, courts are permitted to consider that even a non earning person can be reckoned to have an income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. 'Guesstimation' is certainly required. WE are satisfied that we can safely assume that the deceased must have been earning an income of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem. WE are further satisfied that the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that 16 alone should have been reckoned as the multiplier considering the age of the deceased can also be accepted.