SUNIL KUMAR Vs. VISHNU PRASAD
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Click here to view full judgement.
S.R.Nayak, C.J. -
(1.) In this appeal preferred by the dependants of the deceased
seeking more compensation, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short,
'the Tribunal') has committed an apparent
illegality in applying multiplier 13 instead
of applying correct multiplier 15, because
the deceased as on the date of accident was
aged 45 years. It was also contended that
the Tribunal was not justified in not awarding compensation under the conventional
heads 'loss to estate' and 'loss of love and
affection' to the minor children. It was
further contended that what is awarded to
the widow towards 'loss of consortium' is
also very much on lower side.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, we are of the considered opinion
that the Tribunal has committed an apparent illegality in applying multiplier 13. If
the age of the deceased as on the date of
the accident was 45 years, the appropriate
multiplier is 15 not 13. Tribunal was also
not justified in not awarding any compensation under the conventional heads 'loss
to estate' and 'loss of love and affection'.
We also find some force in the contention
of learned counsel that what is awarded
towards 'loss of consortium to the widow'
is also on lower side.
(3.) If we apply the multiplier of 15, the
total 'loss of dependency' would come to
Rs. 11,81,160 (Rs. 78,744 x 15). Accordingly, we award Rs. 11,81,160 for 'loss
of dependency' as against Rs. 10,23,672
awarded by Claims Tribunal. Further, we
award Rs. 20,000 towards 'loss to estate'
and Rs. 20,000 towards 'loss of love and
affection' to the minor children. We also
enhance the compensation under the head
'loss of consortium' to the widow from
Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.