Compensation in fatal accident claims must adequately reflect loss sustained by dependents, ensuring consideration for pain, suffering, and emotional loss.

JUDGMENT

Jyothindranath, J.

The relevant facts for consideration of this appeal are as follows:

Surendran was a Civil Police Officer who was controlling road traffic at Pandarakavu - Manappullikavu road. While so, on 19.12.2011 at 3.45 a.m., a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN/28/AC/8707, came in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the Jeep bearing Reg.No.KL/01/AG/9524 and then the jeep knocked down the deceased Police Officer and due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, he succumbed to the injuries. He left behind his mother who was aged 59 years at the time of the accident and three siblings who are all married by that time. The mother and two siblings moved a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ` 40,00,000/-. One of the siblings was arrayed as the 6th respondent. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ` 22,08,500/- with 9% interest from 5.10.2012 till realisation. The challenge in this appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation.

2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel submitted before us that even though a compensation of ` 30,000/- was made towards `pain and suffering', no amount was awarded towards this head. It is also the submission that the compensation awarded towards `loss of estate' is also on a lower side and further, no amount awarded towards `loss of love and affection'. The learned counsel Smt.K.S.Santhi, appearing for the insurance company, submitted before us that a just compensation was assessed by the Tribunal and an interference is not warranted. It is also submitted before us that even though a pay certificate was seen produced, no deduction is highlighted therein.

3. After hearing the counsel, we feel that the appeal itself can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. There is no dispute regarding the liability of the insurance company as well as the cause of the accident. Under such circumstances, notice to the 2nd respondent dispensed with and the matter heard in detail.

4. In this case, it can be seen that the deceased was a bachelor. He was aged 31 years. The Tribunal found that apart from mother, neither the other claimants nor the 6th respondent are dependents. If it is so, surely, the only dependent will be the mother. The reasoning given by the Tribunal in this regard seems to be correct. As the deceased was a bachelor 50% deduction from the monthly income is seen made by the Tribunal while compensation was assessed. When the only dependent is the mother, surely, there will be savings. The corollary is that the appellants will be entitled for a higher amount towards `loss of estate'. In this case, the Tribunal awarded only ` 5,000/- against a claim of ` 1,50,000/-. Considering the facts of the case, surely, the appellants are entitled for a higher compensation on this count. In the absence of evidence regarding the savings we are only granting an additional compensation of ` 20,000/- towards `loss of estate'. The said amount is awarded. No amount is seen awarded towards `pain and suffering'. In this case, the deceased died while he was taken to the hospital. Under such circumstances, an amount of ` 10,000/- is awarded towards `pain and suffering'. In this case, no amount is seen awarded towards `loss of love and affection'. It can be seen that the mother is the only dependent. The other siblings are already got married. Under such circumstances, it will be only just and proper to grant ` 25,000/- towards` loss of love and affection' to the first appellant/first petitioner. The compensation awarded on all other heads seems to be just and proper. Thus, the appellants will be entitled for an additional compensation of ` 55,000/- which will bear 8% interest from 5.10.2012 till realisation. The insurance company shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Parties shall bear the costs in the appeal.

C.T. RAVIKUMAR Judge