J U D G M E N T

The claimants, who are the children of the deceased Manonmani, are on Appeal terming the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, awarded for the death of the said Manonmani in a road accident, as meager.

2. It is not in dispute that Manonmani, who was aged about 55 years died in a road accident that occurred on 20.01.2005. The husband and children lodged the Claim Petition seeking a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. towards damages though they assessed the pecuniary loss at RS.10,00,000/-.

3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-04-D-8679. The quantum of compensation claimed was also termed as excessive.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini Lorry, which was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. On the quantum, the Tribunal found that the claimants being major children were not dependant on the mother and therefore, they are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency and granted only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as consolidated compensation. The husband of the deceased, who figured as the first claimant before the Tribunal also died pending the proceeding. The children are now on Appeal.

5. I have heard Ms.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company.

6. Ms.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in granting only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that the claimants are not dependant on the mother. This view of the Tribunal, according to the learned counsel, overlooks the value of the elders. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by vending vegetables which was being contributed by her to her children.

7. Contending contra Mr.Bhaskaran learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that all of them are major children and they cannot be said to be dependants on the mother.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

9. Loss of dependency is a concept, every person is dependent on the elders in the family for something or the other. The mother occupies a very important position in the family and she is looked upon for many things. Even though she may not be contributing financially to the family her contribution to the welfare of the family as such, cannot be valued in terms of money. Therefore, I do not think the Tribunal was right in just brushing aside the relationship and concluding that the claimants would not be entitled to compensation because they were not dependant on the mother.

Absolute dependency is not the essential factor for award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

10. I am therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in discarding the dependency and granting only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. It is claimed that she was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month, the accident occurred in 2005, therefore, the monthly income can safely be assumed at Rs.4,500/- after deducting 1/3 towards a personal expenses, she would have contributed a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the family. Adding 10% towards future prospects her monthly contribution would be Rs.3,300/-. Adopting the multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3,56,400/-. Since the claimants are three in number, a sum of Rs.75,000/- will be reasonable amount that should be awarded towards loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards Funeral expenses and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- each. Thus the total compensation works out to Rs,4,61,400/- and it is rounded off to Rs.4,60,000/- .

11. The claimants have restricted the claim to Rs.3,00,000/-, but such a restriction cannot prevent the Court from granting