SUBAIDA Vs. N P MOHAMMED AKBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parents and siblings of a person died in a motor vehicle accident, who were claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in OP(MV)701/2006, are the appellants herein, challenging the award based on a contention that the amounts awarded are highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate. Deceased, named Abdul Nazar, met with an accident on 25.6.2006 when a jeep hit against the motorcycle on which he was travelling. He sustained very serious injuries and got admitted in a hospital on the date of accident itself, but succumbed to the injuries on 1.7.2006. In this appeal there is no dispute with respect to the finding of the Tribunal on the aspects of negligence and on the question of liability of the 3rd respondent. Appellants contented that the Tribunal went highly erred in awarding only a meagre amount under the head of loss of dependency. It is contented that the Tribunal failed to add anything towards future prospects. Further it is contented that the multiplier adopted based on the age of the parents, is illegal and improper. The findings to the extent that all the appellants, except the mother of the deceased, were not dependants, is challenged as unsustainable and erroneous. It is also contented that, amounts awarded under other heads are also too insufficient and inadequate.

(2.) Heard; learned counsel for the appellants and Adv. P. Jayasankar learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent insurance company.

(3.) The occupation of the deceased as well as his income were proved before the Tribunal through production of Ext.A11 certificate, which was marked by examination of PW The deceased was at the age of 22 years at the time of death. The Tribunal missed to consider anything towards future prospects in his carrier. We are of the opinion that, based on settled legal precedents, 30% addition towards future prospects is justifiable and reasonable. It now remains settled through the decision in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) that loss of dependency need to be calculated based on the age of the deceased and not based on the age of the dependants. Considering that the deceased was aged 22 years, the correct multiplier which need to be adopted is '18'. It cannot be said that the deceased was not contributing anything towards his family, to his parents and siblings, especially when two of them are minors. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in this regard do not have any basis. Since the deceased was a bachelor aged 22 years, 50% of his income need to be deducted towards personal expenses. Considering all the above aspects mentioned above, we are inclined to rework and refix the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency at Rs. 6,31,800/- [4500+30%x12x18x']. After deducting the amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- awarded under that head, the appellants are entitled for an enhancement of Rs. 4,87,800/-. Evidently the death occurred after five days of the accident. We are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings is on the lower side. We are inclined to grant a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- on that count. The Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. It is to be noted that the parents have lost their son, who was at the age of 22. It is also a fact that all the siblings have lost their brother. Therefore the appellants need to be compensated reasonably under the head of loss of love and affection. We are inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to both the parents and Rs. 10,000/- each to all other siblings. Thus we refix total compensation under the head of loss of love and affection at Rs. 1,10,000/-, which will entitle the appellants for an enhancement of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is highly inadequate. We are inclined to grant a further sum of Rs. 22,000/- on that count. We do not find any ground warranting interference with respect to the amounts awarded under other heads. Thus we hold that the appellants will be entitled for a total enhancement of Rs. 6,19,800/-.