ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUDHA K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer is the appellant. THE insurer challenges the quantum of compensation awarded. It is submitted that before the Tribunal, permission under Sec.170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was taken by the appellant/insurer.

(2.) THE deceased was a young man aged 26 years. He was unmarried at the time of accident i.e., 5/12/2005. It was claimed that he was employed as an Investigator of a Chartered Accountant firm. It was submitted that he was getting an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. Ext.A7 salary certificate was produced. THE Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,27,500/- as shown below:

(3.) WE have anxiously considered all the relevant inputs. WE do agree completely with the learned counsel for the appellant that multiplier in excess of 13 should not have been taken considering the age of the dependents/claimants. But the question is not whether every figure taken by the Tribunal is legally correct or not. This court has to consider whether the total amount of Rs.3,27,500/- awarded as compensation is fair, just and reasonable. WE do particularly note that against the salary certificate of Rs.5,500/- produced, only Rs.3,000/- has been reckoned as monthly income. WE further note that not the standard deduction under 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased has been taken; but half of the amount has been deducted towards personal expenses.If we take only 1/3rd as the amount to be kept apart for the personal expenses of the deceased from the amount of Rs.3,000/- which alone the Tribunal has chosen to accept, we find that an amount in excess of Rs.3,06,000/- presently awarded under the head of loss of dependency can and should be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of dependency.When income is meager, it would be irrational to assume that an unmarried person would arrogate to himself more than 1/3rd for his personal expenses. WE do not, in these circumstances, think it necessary to interfere with the impugned award. WE make it clear that we choose not to interfere not because we find that 17 as multiplier is correct but because we feel that the total amount of compensation awarded absolutely fair, just and reasonable.