IMPORTANT POINTS
The total compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency would come to Rs.18,25,200/-. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.13,20,000/-by way of compensation under that head. The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to a further sum of Rs.5,05,200/-under that head- In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, Rs.15,000/-each should have been granted by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Only a sum of Rs.20,000/-has been granted towards compensation under those two heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/-under those two heads. Likewise, only a sum of Rs.5,000/-has been granted by the Tribunal for pain and suffering. According to me, the Tribunal should have granted at least a sum of Rs.10,000/-by way compensation under that head. The claimants are, therefore, granted a further sum of Rs.5,000/-by way of compensation under that head. Towards compensation for loss of love and affection, only Rs.25,000/-has been granted. According to me, the mother and sister of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-each under the said head [See Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782]. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.55,000/-by way of compensation under that head. Thus, the additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.5,75,200/-.

JUDGMENT :

Claimants 1, 3 and 4 in an original petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the compensation granted by the Tribunal.

2. One Vijayan aged 52 years died in a motor accident took place on 03.11.2012. He was unmarried. The deceased was a Pump Operator in the Kerala Water Authority. The mother, brother, widowed sister and the son of the widowed sister of the deceased were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/-was the claim made in the proceedings. The Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.13,75,000/-by way of compensation. The mother, widowed sister and the son of the widowed sister of the deceased who were claimants 1, 3 and 4 respectively in the claim petition are aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the last pay certificate of the deceased which is part of the records in the case would indicate that the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.20,940/- by way of Basic Pay, a sum of Rs.9,423/- by way of Dearness Allowance and Rs.1000/- by way of other allowances. According to the learned counsel, the aggregate of the said amounts namely Rs.31,113/- should have been reckoned as the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation payable for loss of dependency. It was pointed out that the Tribunal has reckoned only the basic pay of the deceased as the income for the said purpose. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that as the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenses, while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. According to the learned counsel, there is no rule that 50% of the income shall be deducted invariably towards personal expenses in the case of unmarried persons. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the Tribunal is free to deduct a lesser percentage of the income towards personal expenses while computing the compensation for loss of dependency, if circumstances warrant. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the peculiarity of the facts of the present case, the Tribunal ought to have confined the personal expenses of the deceased to one third of his income. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that while computing the compensation for loss of dependency, the Tribunal has not added any portion of the income to the multiplicand towards future prospects. According to the learned counsel, in so far as the deceased was below the age of 60 and was a permanent employee in a public sector entity, 15% of the income should have been added to the multiplicand towards future prospects while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. It was also contended by the learned counsel that compensation granted by the Tribunal for funeral expenses, pain and sufferings, loss of estate and loss of love and affection are meagre and are liable to be revised.

5. I shall first deal with the contention as regards the income to be deducted towards personal expenses while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. It appears that the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, as affirmed by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC). In Pranay Sethi, the Apex Court has only approved the law laid down in Sarla Verma as regards the deduction to be made towards personal expenses. The said fact is evident from the operative portion of the decision in Pranay Sethi which reads thus:

“For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore”

Paragr