JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P.(M.V.)No.1205 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenging the award dated 11.9.2015 on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

2. The appellants are dependents of Sheela Balachandran, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 3.5.2014. They are the husband and three major children of the deceased. The injured died after ten days of the accident. The appellants claimed that the deceased was employed in a private firm and produced Exhibit A7 salary certificate to prove that she was drawing monthly salary of Rs.9,500/-. They claimed compensation under various heads which are detailed in the impugned award. The respondent Insurance Company admitted the accident as well as the policy coverage.

3. The learned Tribunal, after fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-, on notional basis, adding future prospects of 30% and deducting personal and living expenses by 1/3, fixed a total amount of loss of dependency for an amount of Rs.10,24,800/-, applying multiplier of 14. The quantification of loss of dependency is challenged on the ground that the monthly income adopted was below her actual income and another 1/3 deducted towards personal and living expenses exceeded ¼. Another contention raised is that Rs.25,000/-awarded for pain and suffering was much lower.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent Insurance Company.

5. Exhibit A7 salary certificate was not proved by examining the official who issued it. Nevertheless the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company did not object to Exhibit A7 being considered as part of the evidence. Even otherwise I am satisfied that at the relevant time of the accident, it was only reasonable that the deceased would have been drawing a monthly salary of Rs.9,500/-as mentioned in Exhibit A7. The dependents being four in number, the court below should have deducted only 1/4 of the personal and living expenses as per the guidelines issued in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In that event, the annual multiplicant should be fixed in the following formula :

Rs.9,500/-+ 30% of Rs.9,500/-= Rs.12,350/-less ¼ = Rs.9,263/- x 12 = Rs.1,11,156/-

Applying the multiplier 14 as set forth in Sarla Verma's case, the total amount of loss of dependency would rise to Rs.15,56,184/- from Rs.10,24,800/- fixed by the Tribunal.

6. Considering the fact that the deceased was hospitalised for ten days and had undergone sufferings during the period, the amount of Rs.25,000/-fixed by the Tribunal is modified to a reasonable amount of Rs.35,000/-.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that the court below went wrong in granting increased amounts towards compensation under conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

8. The submission appears to be correct. As per the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the loss of estate and funeral expenses cannot exceed Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, Rs.10,000/-and Rs.35,000/-have to be deducted respectively from the funeral expenses and loss of estate awarded by the Tribunal. Applying the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others [(2018) 18 SCC 130], consortium amount of Rs.40,000/-is awarded to each of the four petitioners. In order to avoid duplication of claims, amount awarded under the head of loss of love and affection is deleted. In all other aspects, the impugned award is approved.

9. The table of claims and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as below :