RAJANI Vs. M.N.ARAVINDAKSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are the claimants in O.P.(MV) No. 180/2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. They filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the death of Suresh Kumar, who was the husband, father and son of the appellants, and who died in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. (The 2nd respondent was later deleted from the party array at the risk of the appellants as per order dated 7.2.2011 in I.A. No. 3034/201). The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

(2.) THE first contention of the appellants is that the deceased was a Civil Engineer earning Rs. 12,000/- p.m. as salary as a partner of a firm, namely, M/s. Executors, Builders, Designers Engineers, in Palakkad. He was employed in the firm as a sub-contractor. PW2 gave evidence in support of the said contention. Despite the same, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income only as Rs. 6,000/-. The second contention is that although there were four dependants, viz. the wife, two minor children and aged mother, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased, although, as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010(2) KLT 802, only 1/4th could have been deducted. The third contention is that the multiplier to be applied for calculating loss of dependency should be based on the age of the deceased and not based on the age of any of the dependants. The deceased was 36 years old at the time of the accident and the multiplier fixed in Sarla Verma's case (supra) for a person aged 36 years is 15, whereas, the Tribunal adopted only 8. It is also submitted that compensation for loss of consortium is on the lower side. For pain and suffering of the deceased, no amount has been awarded. For loss of estate and love and affection and all other pecuniary loss together, only Rs. 30,000/- has been granted. The appellants therefore seek enhancement of compensation under all the heads.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail.