JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.460/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Suku George Philip, husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3 in a motor accident, which occurred on 26.4.2007 while he was driving a motor car. At the place of accident, the motor car was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.KL-7/D-2534 driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.23,85,000/- under various heads.

2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent did not file any written statement. The 2nd respondent filed written statement contending that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent was holding a valid and effective driving licence and badge to drive the lorry and the 3rd respondent insurer is liable to indemnify the actual owner of the vehicle. According to the 2nd respondent, he had transferred the vehicle to one Sabeerkutty, prior to the accident.

3. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the lorry involved in the accident; however denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent driver. The insurer pointed out that the police charge-sheeted the deceased for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the appellants. The 1st appellant was examined as PW1. On the side of the respondents a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ext.B1.

5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by the 1st respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,91,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.5,000/- and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award. The compensation amount was ordered to be

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in this appeal.

7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads.

8. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] the Apex Court laid down the principles governing determination of quantum of compensation in the case of death in a motor accident. The Apex Court held that, the compensation awarded does not become 'just compensation' merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by following the well settled steps, namely, ascertaining the multiplicand (annual contribution to the family), the multiplier and calculation of loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand by such multiplier.

9. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held th