KRISHNANUNNI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are parents of Dr. Saju, a 23 year old House Surgeon. Dr. Saju died in a road traffic accident on account of the negligence of the driver of a vehicle, which was insured with the respondent herein. The appellants filed O.P(MV) No. 1839/2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_77_TLKER0_2013htmlh1.htm</FRM> Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,800/-. He being a doctor only 23 years old, the fixation of monthly income is not correct. Learned counsel submits that at least Rs. 30,000/- should have been fixed as the monthly income of the deceased. It is further submitted that as per the second schedule, for calculating the loss of dependency, the multiplier to be adopted was 14. But the Tribunal has adopted only 13. It is also submitted that for pain and suffering only Rs. 5000/- was given. In the above circumstances, counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation has to be enhanced proportionately.

(3.) THE appellants were aged 49 and 42 at the time of the death of their son. There is no evidence regarding the income of the deceased. As such, the Tribunal can only make a guess work. That being so, we are not inclined to interfere with the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 7800/-. We are also not inclined to interfere with the multiplier adopted in view of the fact that the appellants were aged 49 and 42 at the time of the accident. The accident was in 2001 and the deceased died on the same day. Therefore, the conventional amount of rs. 5000/- for pain and suffering is adequate. Hence, on those counts, we are not inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.