JAYASREE Vs. JAYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the wife, mother and minor daughter of deceased Sukumaran, who died in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3rd respondent. They filed O.P.(MV) No. 1357/1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha claiming compensation for the death of their bread winner. 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 raised by the appellants is that the Tribunal wrongly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-, although the appellant had produced Exts. A5 to A7 documents to prove the income, which show more than Rs.3,000/- per mensum. It is further submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the deceased was aged 49 at the time of the accident, whereas the Tribunal took the age as 52 years. It is the further submission of the appellants that no amount has been awarded for loss of estate. Lastly, it is contended that compensation for love and affection for the minor daughter and the mother is on the lower side.

(3.) IT is true that the appellants have produced three certificates from three employers of the deceased. The Tribunal has carefully considered all the three. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was dismissed from service for misappropriation from a society. Thereafter, he was being employed by a consultant. In such circumstances, we cannot expect the deceased to earn more than Rs. 3,000/- per mensum in 1999. Therefore, we are inclined to adopt the notional income fixed by the Tribunal. We are not inclined to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal for fixing the compensation for dependency. The appellants did not adduce any evidence regarding the age of the deceased. Ext. A3 postmortem certificate revealed his age as 52 years. In Ext. A1(a) F.I. Statement, his age is referred to as 50 years. In the above circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the Tribunal considering him in the age group between 51 and 55 years. For a person in that age group, the correct multiplier applicable is 11 as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC). Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the calculation for loss of dependency as well. But, we find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. We award Rs.5,000/- under this head. We are also of opinion that insofar as the third appellant was only 13 year's old at the time of the death of her father, the compensation for love and affection for appellants 2 and 3 is liable to be enhanced. We fix the compensation under this head as Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/-. We are not inclined to enhance compensation under the other heads.