MUCTABAI DATTA NAIK Vs. ROSHANI PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and award dated 30th March, 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 34/1992, on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate. Appellant No. 1 is the wife of late Datta naik, who died in an accident which occurred on 21-11-1991 at Curchorem-Sanvordem bridge. Appellants No. 2 to 8 are the children of late Datta Naik. After the accident, Datta Naik was admitted in Goa Medical College hospital at Bombolim and he expired in the hospital on 27-11-1991. The applicants filed Claim Petition No. 34/92 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, claiming total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- against respondent No. 1 who was the driver/owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and against respondent No. 2, insurance company which had insured the vehicle. In the claim petition, the claimants examined four witnesses. The respondents did not examine any witness. After considering the evidence led by the claimants, the Claims Tribunal held that it was proved that respondent No. 1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. However, the claimant were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 96,000/ -. In the present, appeal, the appellants claim Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of compensation. The only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and, if not, what is the just compensation the appellants are entitled to.

(2.) Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate; the claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount for pain and suffering of the deceased Datta who was in Goa Medical College for six days before his death on 27-11-1991. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded the sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and rs. 5,000/- towards the funeral expenses. It has also been submitted that the appellants are also entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and reasonable amount for the expenses incurred towards medicines and expenses incurred by the applicants towards transport charges on account of the visits to the hospital on those six days, during which period he was in the hospital.

(3.) Mr. Afonso, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that no fault could be found with the award given by the Claims Tribunal and the Claims tribunal has correctly arrived at the compensation while passing the impugned award. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of rs. 96,000/- in favour of the appellants under different heads which are as under: a) Loss of dependency rs. 84,000-00 b) Funeral expenses rs. 2,000-00 c) Loss of estate rs. 5,000-00 d) Loss of company rs. 5,000-00 total rs. 96,000-00