RUKMANI AMMAL Vs. K G HARIDAS KUNNATHALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 45 of 1975 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, are the appellants herein. THEy had filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000 on account of the death of one Sivasami in a motor vehicles accident. THEir case as set out in the claim petition was that the first petitioner is the mother and petitioners 2 to 4 are the brothers of the deceased Sivasami, that the deceased was seated on the pillion of the scooter TNC 2554, driven by his brother, the second petitioner, that the said scooter and one lorry TNC 5227 collided, as a result of which, Sivasami, who was seated on the pillion of the scooter was thrown out resulting in his instantaneous death and that for the death of the said Sivasami, the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 50,000.

(2.) THE said claim was opposed by the owner of the lorry as well as the insurance company with which the lorry had been insured. THEir case was that the person who drove the scooter had been rash and negligent and it is because of the rashness and negligence on his part, the accident occurred and therefore,neither the owner of the lorry nor the insurance company can be held liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimants.

(3.) SO far as the claim for compensation is concerned, it is seen that the deceased Sivasami was 15 years old at the time of his death and he was studying in X standard. It is also in evidence that he is a healthy bright boy. The Tribunal, however, after noting the above features held that except the mother, the first claimant, the other claimants, being the brothers of deceased Sivasami, cannot be said to be the dependants of the deceased, that even if the deceased had been alive and employed, he would have contributed only partly for the maintenance of the mother as the other sons, viz., claimants 2 to 4 will also contribute for the maintenance of their mother. Therefore, the total dependency of the first claimant mother was taken to be only Rs.6,000. However having regard to the fact that apart from the loss of dependency which has been estimated at Rs. 6,000 the first claimant as the mother is entitled to claim compensation for the loss of expectation of life of the deceased which can be easily estimated at Rs.4,000. We are therefore inclined to allow a sum of Rs.4,000 in addition to the sum of Rs.6,000 awarded by the Tribunal as and towards loss of expectation of life. Since the first claimant being the mother, she is entitled to claim the loss of expectation of life, along with the loss of dependency. Thus the total compensation payable to the first claimant in respect of the accident will come to Rs.10,000. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000 as compensation and made a direction to pay the same to all the claimants. But the claimants 2 to 4 cannot be said to be dependants of deceased Sivasami. Therefore, the entire sum of Rs. 10,000 awarded by us will be paid to the first claimant mother.