VIMALA ARAVIND Vs. RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants are the appellants. Originally father and mother of a deceased person, aged 25 years, were the claimants. Father died during the pendency of the proceedings and the sister of the deceased has come on record as legal heir of the deceased father along with his mother. The deceased was a First Year M.B.B.S. student. He succumbed to injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 26.10.1997. It appears that the deceased had earlier worked elsewhere. But he had come back to pursue his medical education in India. While he was studying as a First Year M.B.B.S. student, he had met with the accident. His parents were aged 56 and 48 years respectively on the date of the claim. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs directed payment of a total amount of Rs. 3,14,000 as per details shown below: <p><table class = tablestyle width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="font-family:Verdana"> <tr> <td><div align="center"><strong>SI. No.</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>Head of account</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>Amount</strong></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(1)</div></td> <td>Transportation expenses</td> <td><div align="center">Rs. 1,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(2)</div></td> <td>Carriage expenses</td> <td><div align="center">Rs. 2,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(3)</div></td> <td>Funeral expenses</td> <td><div align="center">Rs. 3,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(4)</div></td> <td>Pain and suffering</td> <td><div align="center">Rs. 5,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(5)</div></td> <td>Loss of love and affection</td> <td><div align="center">Rs. 15,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(6)</div></td> <td>Loss of dependency (Rs. 3,000 x 2/3 x 12 x 12)</td> <td><div align="center">Rs. 2,88,000</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><div align="center"><strong>&nbsp;Total</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>Rs. 3,14,000</strong></div></td> </tr> </table>

(2.) The challenge is directed against the quantum of compensation only. There are no other contentious issues.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal had grossly erred in fixing the total quantum of compensation payable at Rs. 3,14,000.