NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOCHI. Vs. DHANYA. B , 13 YEARS, (MINOR), DATE OF BIRTH 13/6/1984, D/O. LATE SRI BALACHANDRAN, NOW RESIDING AT ABHILASH, SANTHI NAGAR, THEKKUMBAGHOM, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance Company complains that the total compensation of Rs. 9,56,011/- awarded by the Tribunal to the respondent who is the minor daughter of one Balachandran, who was working as Personal Officer with F.A.C.T when he died in a road traffic accident is excessive. The first submission which was made before us by Mr.Rajan P. Kalliyath, learned counsel for the appellant, was that the impugned award should be set aside and the OP(MV) No. 3876/1997 should be sent back to the Additional M.A.C.T, Ernakulam, for a fresh decision. According to Mr. Rajan P. Kalliyath, this was a case where the learned Tribunal took the view that the compensation to be awarded in a claim under section 166 shall not be less than the compensation which is liable to be awarded if the claim were under section 163-A. Mr.Rajan P. Kalliyath submitted that in the instant case, such an approach was highly improper and the annual income of the deceased Balachandran, even according to the respondents, is Rs. 99,519/- . Mr.Rajan P. Kalliyath referred to the judgment of this Court in MACA.No. 2110/2005 and submitted that as the award in that case which is in fact a common award with the one impugned in this appeal has been set aside and remanded, he requested that the impugned award also be set aside and remanded. Mr.T.K.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the respondent filed an application under section 166 only. The learned Tribunal also considered the application as one under section 166. The Tribunal's observation regarding the compensation to be awarded in the context of an application under section 163-A was only a casual one which has not affected the correctness of the decision taken by the Tribunal. According to Mr. T.K. Radhakrishnan, there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned award, on merits.

(2.) Mr.Rajan P. Kalliyath would now respond that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is high. The correct multiplier to be adopted is 14. We find force in the above submission of Mr. Rajan P. Kalliyath. At the same time, we find force in the submission of Mr. T.K. Radhakrishnan that this is a case where substantial compensation should have been awarded to the respondent towards loss of paternal love and affection. This was a case where the respondent lost every other member of her family. We feel that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- can be awarded to the respondent towards loss of paternal love and affection. When proper multiplier is adopted, the dependancy compensation will stand reduced to Rs. 94,511/- . But, when the sum of Rs. 20,000/- is added towards loss of love and affection, the total amount to be deducted from the total compensation presently awarded is only Rs. 74,511/- . We modify the impugned award by reducing a sum of Rs. 54,511/- from the total compensation awarded. But for that, the impugned award stands confirmed in all respects.