K AYYASAMMY Vs. MOHANASUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N.V.Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question that arises is whether the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the death of a person in a road accident is or is not part of the estate of the deceased. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the C.R.P. are that the petitioner had engaged an advocate in the proceedings for enhancement and apportionment of compensation when the lands belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the State. It is stated that the reference Court has ordered the enhancement of compensation amount awarded, and the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not fully paid the entire amount of compensation ordered by the Court by the advocate. Therefore the petitioner initiated proceedings against the advocate in the Bar Council by way of disciplinary proceedings and also initiated criminal proceedings against him. The advocate denied all the charges levelled against him, however, before the proceedings before the Bar Council and the criminal Court could come to an end, the advocate met with a road accident on 31.8.1995 and he also died in the said accident. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of money against the legal representatives of the deceased advocate, namely, his wife, mother and minor children claiming moneys due to him from the deceased advocate as his advocate had not paid the entire amount of compensation received by him and the said suit was decreed against the wife, mother and minor children of the deceased advocate directing them to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 14,76,929.50 with interest from and out of the properties and assets left by the deceased advocate. It is stated that the defendants in the suit, who are the respondents herein, have preferred an appeal in this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge and the appeal is still pending.

(2.) MEANWHILE, the legal representatives of the deceased advocate, namely, his wife, minor children and parents have preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000 for the death of the advocate arising out of the road accident. The claim was made on the score that had the advocate not met with the accident, he would have lived for another 40 years and contributed much more to his family. The Claims Tribunal passed an award directing the respondents in the claim petition to pay a sum of Rs. 14,19,000 under several heads including loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The Claims Tribunal also ordered for the apportionment of the award amount. The Claims Tribunal, in the award, after permitting the petitioners 1, 4 and 5 in the claim petition to withdraw some marginal amounts, directed the balance amount to be deposited in one of the nationalised banks and the Claims Tribunal also directed that the share of the minor petitioners 2 and 3 should be deposited till they attain majority in a nationalised bank.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. WE have gone through the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, and we find that a sum of Rs. 13,44,000 was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the loss of dependency. The award clearly shows that the Claims Tribunal has taken into account the contribution that would have been made by the deceased to the claimants had he been alive and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs. 13,44,000. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the award it is stated stated a sum of Rs. 13,44,000 represents the loss of earning capacity. In our view, it is impermissible to pick one sentence from the award and contend that the amount was granted as compensation for the loss to the estate as a reading of the entire order shows that the compensation amount of Rs. 13,44,000 was awarded for the loss of dependency and not for the loss to the estate.