IMPORTANT POINT
The magnitude of the ordeal may vary from case to case depending upon the nature of injuries sustained. In cases of instantaneous deaths also pain and suffering are invariably present, as in the case of survival for hours or days. In cases of instantaneous death as well as cases where the deceased was unconscious between the time of accident and the time of his death, some notional amount is payable under the head pain and suffering.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The appellants are the claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 979 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Hydru, father of the appellants, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 17.10.2006, while he was walking along the side of a public road. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-10/V-3381 driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent. In the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- under various heads.

2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent driver and the 2nd respondent owner of the autorickshaw remained absent and they were set ex-parte. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement denying insurance coverage of the autorickshaw involved in the accident. Thereafter the 4th respondent insurer was impleaded as supplemental 4th respondent. The said insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the autorickshaw involved in the accident.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the claimants. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.

4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 1st respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 4th respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- together with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with proportionate cost and directed the 4th respondent insurer to satisfy the award. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned among the claimants, equally.

5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent insurer.

7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants/ claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads.

8. In Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Apex Court laid down the principles governing determination of quantum of compensation in the case of death in a motor accident. The Apex Court held that, the compensation awarded does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by following the well settled steps, namely, ascertaining the multiplicand (annual contribution to the family), the multiplier and calculation of loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand by such multiplier.

9. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,