B. JAYA, W/O. SURESH KUMAR, SUMABHAVAN, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM RESIDING AT GOPI BHAVAN, ULIYAKOVIL KOLLAM, Vs. LAILA BEEGOM, SHAFI MANZIL, KILIKOLLUR P.O., KOLLAM,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the legal heirs, being the widow, two minor children and mother of one Suresh Kumar who lost his life in a road traffic accident which occurred while the bus which he tried to board, was moved negligently by the first respondent driver and he was thrown out resulting in a head injury which ultimately lead his death. The grievance voiced by the appellants is that the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation for the death of Suresh Kumar. They claimed a total amount of Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation under various heads. The learned Tribunal under the impugned award allowed them only Rs. 3,91,000/ - together with interest at 9% per annum. According to them, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is quite inadequate.

(2.) WE have heard the submissions of Mr. C. Unnikrishnan, the Learned Counsel for the appellants and those of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company. The submission of Mr. Unnikrishnan was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Drawing our attention to Ext.A8 certificate issued by Aradhana Cinema, it was submitted by Mr. Unnikrishnan that Ext.A8 will show that the appellant was a permanent employee of the above cinema drawing a salary of Rs. 4637/ - per mensem. Considering the future prospects in the career of the deceased, the learned Tribunal should have adopted at least Rs. 6,000/ - as the monthly income for determining the dependency compensation, but the Tribunal adopted only Rs. 2,000/ -. According to Mr. Unnikrishnan this adoption of income is too low. Mr. Unnikrishnan also submitted that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded under all the other heads.

(3.) HAVING given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully gone through the impugned award, we see inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the appellants.