MARIAMMA APREM Vs. ABRAHAM A V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. M. Joseph, J.- Appellants are the widow and son of the deceased. Appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the insurance company. The complaint arises from the findings arising from the discussion in paragraph 16 of the award relating to the amount payable towards dependency. We extract paragraph 16 hereunder: "ext. A-5 is the pension payment order. The document indicates that the deceased aprem was getting an amount of Rs. 4,703 as pension for the month immediately before the accident. After the death of deceased Aprem, first petitioner is getting an amount of Rs. 1,844 as family pension. Therefore, the loss of income is Rs. 2,859 per month. After deducting 1/3 for personal expenses, the monthly dependency comes to rs. 1,906. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 22,872. As per the averments in the petition, deceased Aprem was aged 67 at the time of his death and the multiplier applicable in this case is 5. Therefore, for loss of dependency, petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs. 1,14,360. For transport to hospital, ambulance charges and damages to clothing, petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000. Towards funeral expenses, another amount of Rs. 3,000 is awarded. Petitioners are entitled to an amount of rs. 10,000 towards pain and suffering. For loss of love and affection, petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,000. First petitioner is entitled to an amount of rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,49,360 as compensation. Issue is answered accordingly. <FRM>SAURAS0_78_ILR(KER)4_2009.HTM</FRM>

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants would rely on the judgment of the apex Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others v. Maharashtra State Road transport Corporation and another, 1999 (1) S. C. C. 90 and in Lal Dei and others v. Himachal road Transport, 2007 (8) S. C. C. 319. He also relies on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Avon Delux Transport Co. v. Sheelatha Selvamani and others, 1982 A. C. J. 370.