Compensation for loss of dependency requires proof of reliance on the deceased's income, which was lacking when claimants are financially independent adults.

JUDGMENT

RAMACHANDRA MENON,J To what extent a human being can be tapped, to extract money, referring to a tragic road traffic accident involving accidental death of an old man aged 82 years, is the point involved in this case. The loss of life and farewell to this world is of course disturbing, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. But when it is sought to be measured in terms of compensation payable, the matter necessitates wider consideration, that too when, such claim petition is filed by persons claiming themselves as dependents, are age old sons and daughters having separate families and leading their lives accordingly.

2. The accident in the instant case was occurred on 30.9.2011.

The deceased was an octogenarian, having crossed the age of 82 years. It is stated that, he was standing on the side of NH-47 near Koratty, when the stage carriage owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and knocked him down. This was sought to be compensated by filing claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda.

3. The claim put forth by the claimants before the Tribunal was that, the deceased was an earning member, generating income by way of selling lottery tickets and that the claimants were the 'dependents' of the deceased, being the son/daughters. The 1st claimant, during the course of proceedings took his last breath, pursuant to which his widow and children were brought into the party array as additional claimants 5 to 7. Respondents 1 and 2 did not choose to contest the matter and were set ex-parte. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of A1 to A10. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal, based on the materials produced, arrived at a finding that the accident was caused solely because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and proceeded to fix the liability accordingly.

4. Even though no evidence was adduced by examining anybody before the Tribunal or by producing any documents as to the occupation or income of the deceased, the Tribunal reckoned a notional income of ₹5,000/- and worked out the compensation payable. It was observed in paragraph 10 of the award that the petitioners before the Tribunal were the dependents of the deceased and in the said circumstances, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and the balance was reckoned as contribution to the family. Considering the age of deceased as over 82 years, a multiplier of '3' was taken and compensation towards loss of dependency was worked out as ₹1,20,024/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, as given in paragraph 16, are as given below:

This total compensation of ₹1,97,024/- was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 15.12.2011, the date of the petition, till the date of deposit, which is stated as inadequate and hence the appeal

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the grievance is only against the reckoning of 'proper multiplier'.

According to the appellants, the Tribunal ought to have reckoned a multiplier of '5' as applicable in the case of persons who have crossed the age of 60 years, as given in the 2nd schedule, and not '3'. This is sought to be rec