B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE claimants are the wife and children of one Obulaiah who died in a motor vehicle accident dated 8-9-1985 due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with 3rd respondent. The claimants filed O. P. No. 40/87 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Ongole claiming a compensation of Rs. 82,000/ -. After an enquiry, the Tribunal found that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and awarded a total compensation of rs. 25,000/ with joint and several liability on respondents 1 and 3.

( 2 ) ). The deceased having suffered the injuries succumbed to them on 19-3-1986. His age at the time of the accident is found to be 30 years and the income which was said to be Rs. l,000/-per month both from the profession of piper and poultry farming, was not accepted, but as a whole rs. 25,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal is filed.

( 3 ) MR. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the appellants claimants has contended that in any manner the income of the deceased is assessed, the loss of contribution to the claimants by the deceased could not be less than rs. 1,000/- per month providing the multiplicand at Rs. 12,000/- p. a. and with the multiplier of about 14 for the age of the deceased and with the conventional sum of Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No. 1, the wife of the deceased, and some reasonable sum towards pain and suffering of the deceased as he died on 19-3-1986 and some amount towards medical and other expenses like funeral, transportation etc. , the amount of compensation ought to be far in excess of what is claimed and according to him it will be about Rs. 1,57,000/ -.

( 4 ) THERE is no representation for the respondents.

( 5 ) THE case being one of fatal accidents, as per settled law, we have to adopt the multiplier method declared as law by the Supreme Court in General manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and UPSRTC vs. Trilok Chandra and others. Except the testimony of claimant No. 1 that the income of her husband was Rs. 1000/- per month from poultry farming, there is no supporting material. What was his income from the profession of piper is not brought out. There was a solitary entry in the pass book for February 85 for rs. 5,000/- in addition to some small entries towards accrual of interest. Such a deposit, by itself, cannot support the income either per month or per annum. If at all, that can be some deposit or savings or may be even deposited out of the amounts borrowed by the deceased as it generally happens. However, in view of the interested testimony of claimant No. 1, even presuming that the income was exaggerated or made without sufficient basis, having due regard to the number of members in the family including the deceased, the survival of them could not have been possible unless they get Rs. 100/- per head on an average and excluding Rs. 100/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family could be safely taken as rs. 500/- per month or Rs. 6,000/- per annum representing the multiplicand. With this multiplicand and the multiplier of 14 the loss of contribution to the family would be Rs. 84,000/ -. Adding a conventional sum of Rs. 7500/- towards loss of expectation of life and future happy life and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No. 1, being the young wife of the deceased and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering of the deceased as he died almost 6 months after the accident and Rs. 2,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses, the total compensation in this case ought to have been rs. 1,13,500/ -. As against this the Tribunal very arbitrarily fixed most inadequate compensation of Rs. 25,000/- without even applying the known method of assessment of compensation in a ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document