HANEEFA Vs. C.T. PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these appeals arise from decisions in different petitions disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, we are disposing of these by this common judgment because all the claims arise out of the same motor accident. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is one and the same namely who exactly was negligent in causing this accident.

(2.) M .F.A. 764/86 is at the instance of the petitioners in G.P. (M.V.) 691/92. They are wife, daughter and mother of late John who lost his life in the accident. M.F.A. No. 903/ 86 is by the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) 686/92 namely, the mother of deceased Lalu, who lose his life in the accident. M.F.A. 906/82 is by the petitioners in O.P. (M.V.) 686/82. They are the wife and children of deceased George who succumbed to the injuries in the accident. M.F.A. No. 185/87 is at the instance of the petitioner in G.P. (M.V.) No. 107/83, petitioner Haneefa sustained injuries in the incident.

(3.) IN O.P. (M.V.) 691/82 the claimants namely, the wife, child and mother of deceased John claimed compensation of Rs. 2,02,750/ -. Their case was that deceased John aged 28 was getting an income of Rs. 750/ - per month from the tea shop he was running. Tribunal took the view that deceased might have been spending a sum of Rs. 300/ - per month to the members of his family. We feel that this assessment made by the Tribunal is correct. At that rate the annual dependency of the family can be fixed at Rs. 3,600/ -. While computing the compensation the Tribunal adopted 20 as the multiple. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomes 1984 (1) K.L.T. 67 the multiple can never be 20. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that a multiple of 15 will be reasonable. Thus the compensation on account of the death of John has to be fixed at Rs. 54,000/ -.