The court clarified the application of multiplier principles in compensation calculation and acknowledged the right to claim for loss of love, affection, and other non-economic damages.

J U D G M E N T

P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the death in a road traffic accident occurred on 18.04.2004.

2. The factual position revealed from the proceedings is that, the deceased was travelling in the autorickshaw bearing No.KL- 10K/921 driven by her son (who also died in the accident) and while so, when the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, a bus bearing No.KL-10G/3618 came from the same direction and hit on the same, causing serious injuries leading to her death, which led to the claim petition filed by her legal heirs before the Tribunal seeking to compensate the loss. The claim petition filed by the same claimants, seeking for compensation in respect of the death of the son, who was the driver of the autorickshaw, was also tried and disposed of as per the common award passed by the Tribunal.

3. The matter was contested by the respondents 3 and 5, who were the insurers of the two vehicles. The contention raised by them was mainly on quantum/negligence.

4. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of documents marked as Exts.A1 to A12.

5. Based on the relevant materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident had occurred solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and proceeded to fix the compensation accordingly.

6. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable, though the deceased was a non-earning house wife, as per the decision reported in Mathura Dutt v. D.T.Singh [(2005(3) KLT 218], minimum contribution to the households is to be treated as of ₹3,000/- per month and the Tribunal reckoned the same for the purpose calculating compensation for death. Referring to the serious consequences resulted because of the accident, a total sum of ₹4,00,000/- was claimed. Awarding amounts under different heads, the total compensation was fixed as ₹1,92,000/-, which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The liability was mulcted upon the shoulders of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. Inadequacy of the compensation awarded is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant is the husband of the deceased who was aged 40 years. But the Tribunal awarded ₹1,92,000/- as compensation towards loss of dependency by reckoning the notional monthly income as ₹3,000/- and adopting a multiplier of 8. No amount has been awarded under any other heads like transportation, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, etc., which made the appellant to feel aggrieved and hence the appeal.

9. Going by the contents of the award, it is seen that the contention of the appellant is correct and that, the award amount requires to be enhanced. Considering the date of accident and the age of the deceased, we find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income of the appellant as ₹4,000/-. By virtue of the settled law, the appropriate multiplier has to be worked out with reference to the age of the deceased, under which circumstances, it has to be '14'. After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses and reckoning the balance as the contribution to the family, it comes to ₹2,24,000/- (₹4000x12x1/3x14). After deducting the sum of ₹1,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation for death, the balance payable would come to ₹ 32,000/-.

10. By virtue of the law declared by the honourable Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbirsingh [2013 (3) KLT 89], the compensation towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should have been ₹1,00,000/-, ₹1,00,000/- and ₹25,000/- respectively. But we are aware of the fact that, the accident in the said case was of the year 2007, whereas, in the instant case, it was of the year 2004. Striking a balance, we