Hon'ble MIDHA, J.—The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to him. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 31st January, 2002 resulted in the death of Alka Adhlak. The deceased was survived by her husband who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was working as a teacher in Government Girls Senior Secondary School at a salary of Rs.11,019/- per month. The income of the deceased was proved by Ex.PW-3/1. The appellant was aged 34 years at the time of the accident and was working in Jesus and Marry College. The appellant was not financially dependent upon the deceased. The learned Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and mental agony.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The deceased was contributing sufficient amount for running the house and, therefore, compensation for loss of dependency be awarded to the appellant.

(ii) The compensation be awarded to the appellant for loss of estate.

(iii) The compensation be also awarded for loss of love and affection.

(iv) The rate of interest be enhanced.

5. The appellant was not financially dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the compensation towards loss of dependency. However, the appellant is entitled for compensation for loss to estate. The law in this regard is well settled by the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of A.Manavalagan vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors., 2005 ACJ 1992, where it was held as under:-

“8. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration:

(i) What are the principles for determining compensation, where the claimant is not a dependant?”

“12. In Gobald Motor Service vs. R.M.K. Veluswami, MANU/SC/0016/1961 : [1962] 1 SCR 929 referring to Sections 1 and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (Sections 1A and 2 after 1951 amendment to the said Act), the Supreme Court pointed out the difference between damages recoverable under the said two Sections. It was held that while under Section 1 (new Section 1A) damages are recoverable for the benefit of the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2, compensation goes to the benefit of the estate; whereas under Section 1, damages are payable in respect of loss sustained by the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2 damages can be claimed inter alia for loss of expectation of life and loss to the estate. The Supreme Court held that persons who claim benefit under Section 1 and 2 need not be the same as the claims under the said two Sections are based upon different causes of action. The Supreme Court held:

"The principle in its application to the Indian Act has been clearly and succinctly stated by a division bench of the Lahore High Court in Secretary of State vs. Gokal Chand (AIR 1925 Lah 636). In that case, Sri Shadilal CJ observed thus:

"The law contemplates two sorts of damages: the one is the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident; the other is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The action for the latter is brought by the legal representatives, not for the estate, but as trustees for the relatives beneficially entitled; while the damages for the loss caused to the estate are claimed on behalf of the estate and when recovered from part of the assets of the estate.

An illustration may clarify the position X is the income of the estate of the deceased, Y is the yearly expenditure incurred by him on his dependants (we will ignore the other expenditure incurred by him). X-Y, i.e., Z is the amount he saves every year. The capitalised value of the income spe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document