CHEELLAMMAL Vs. BADARUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants are the appellants. They are the mother aged 62 years and siblings of the deceased, a young man aged 23 years on the date of the accident, i.e. on 25th April, 2002. He succumbed to the injury suffered in that accident. Against a total claim of limited to Rs. 6 lakhs, Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 9 of the impugned award which we extract below. <p><table class = tablestyle width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" style="font-family:Verdana"> <tr> <td width="66" valign="top"><p><strong>Sl.<br> No.</strong>

(2.) First of all, it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is low. It cannot be said to be just compensation for the loss suffered. Secondly, Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the direction given in favour of the Insurance Company to recover the amount from second respondent/owner is not legally sustainable in view of the dictum in New India Assurance Co, Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and others, 2011 4 KerLT 412.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that even accepting the finding of the Tribunal that the monthly earnings of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- p.m. the amount Rs. 1.5 lakhs awarded as compensation warrants interference because the amount awarded is perversely low. At any rate the amount awarded should not have been lesser than the amount payable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.