M. K. SHAH, P. D. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) THE deceased was a medical practitioner holding B. A. M. S. and L. M. P. degrees. Since September 1968 he had established private practice at Pethapur. At the time of his death he was aged about 32. The first respondent widow of the deceased was at the material time about 27 years of age. The second respondent daughter of the deceased was at the material time aged about 3 years. The third respondent father of the deceased was at that material time aged about 63 years.

( 3 ) IT might be stated that the claim petition was originally filed only; by the first and second respondents. The third respondent was originally joined as the fourth opponent. Subsequently however the Tribunal permitted the transposition of the third respondent as applicant No. 3 at the request of the said respondent. So far as the claim put forward by the first and second respondents in their claim petition is concerned the total amount claimed as and by way of compensation was Rs. 3 0 C00. 00. The said claim was split up under different heads as per the particulars mentioned hereinbelow:rs. 1,32,000 Pecuniary loss caused to the first respondent. 25,000 Pecuniary loss caused to the second respondent. 10,000 Mental shock and suffering caused to the first respondent. 5,000 Mental shock and suffering caused to the second respondent. 10,000 Marriage expenses of the second respondent. 30,000 Pecuniary loss caused to the child in the womb of the first respondent at the time of the accident. 5,000 Mental shock and pain and suffering caused to the deceased. 1,000 Medical expenses90,000 Lost to the estate1,500 Damage to the Motor-bike3,09,500although on the aforesaid basis the first and second respondents were entitled to claim the sum of Rs. 39,500 as compensation they restricted their claim to Rs. 300

( 4 ) THE third respondent who as earlier stated was originally cited as opponent No. 4 fixed his written Statement which is at Ex. 35 In the written Statement it was his case that the deceased was paying him Rs. 300. 00 per month towards his maintenance. On that basis the third respondent claimed onethird share in the sum of Rs. 1320 claimed by the first respondent as pecuniary loss caused to her by the death of the deceased The third respondent further claimed one half share in the sum of Rs. 100 claimed by the first respondent on account of mental shock and pain caused to her as a result of the death of the deceased. The third respondent similarly claimed one third share in the claim made by the first and second respondents under the head of loss to the estate. On the aforesaid basis the third respondent claimed to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 800 out of the total claim of Rs. 300 made by the first and second respondents.

( 5 ) AN analysis of the award made as aforesaid in a tabular form yields the following result: First and second

Third

Respondents

respondent

Rs.

Rs.

1,26,000/-

Dependency benefit

5,000/-

Mental shock and suffering

5,000/-

mental shock & suffering caused to

the first respondent.

10,000/-

Loss to estate.

5,000/-

Pain and suffering to the deceased.

15,000/-

Medical expenses

800/-

Damage to the Motor-bike.

20,000/-

Loss to the estate.

1,57,300/-

out of the amount of Rs. 1,57,300 awarded as above the sum of Rs. 5000 was exclusively awarded to the first respondent and therefore the amount jointly awarded to the first and second respondents came to Rs. 1 52 300 The Tribunal apportioned the said amount between the first and second respondents in the proportion of two units for the first respondent and one unit for the second respondent. Accordingly. it awarded out of the sum of Rs. 1,52,300 he amount of Rs. 1,6,534 to the first respondent and Rs 50,766 to the second respondent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 6 ) THAT takes us to the question of compensation. As earlier stated different amounts have been awarded to the first and second respondents on the one hand and to the third respondent on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document