RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the parents and minor brother of one Rakesh who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 30/5/2002. Allegedly while the deceased was riding his two wheeler, he was hit down by a truck which was coming from the opposite direction. Against the claim of Rs. 7 lakhs, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,68,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization. The adequacy of compensation is under challenge.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company.

(3.) Allegedly, the deceased was a fitter in a tyre retreading shop at Rajkot. He was 24 years at the time of the accident. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 4500/-. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though Ext. A11 certificate was admitted in evidence to prove the monthly income, the same was not taken into account by the learned Tribunal for fixing the compensation for loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra would submit that Ext.A11 certificate was not properly proved and thus the learned Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- for computing the compensation for loss of dependency. We do notice that the accident was of the year 2002. As the deceased was only 24 years at the time of the accident, it is only reasonable to hold that he might have earned at least Rs. 3,000/- per month by engaging himself in any profession or job. The first appellant who is the father of the deceased, was aged 49 years at the time of the accident. Though it is alleged that the 2nd appellant who is the mother of the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident, the learned Tribunal could not take into account the same. The appellants have not stated the correct age of the 2nd appellant either in the claim petition or in the appeal memorandrum. As there is no convincing evidence regarding the age of the 2nd appellant, we are of the view that proper multiplier that can be adopted in the present case is 14 which is applicable to the age group of the first appellant.