- (1.) Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel. The claimants in the motor accident claim case are the appellants before us. Mathiyalagan (son of claimant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of claimant Nos. 3 to 5) died in a motor accident on 16.12.2001. The Tribunal found that he was aged 17 years, owned 7 acres of land and managing his agricultural operations. The family was well placed, the father being an advocate. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 per month. After deducting one-third towards living expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal determined the contribution to the family as Rs. 24,000 per annum. By applying the multiplier of 16, it arrived at the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,84,000. It awarded Rs. 10,000 towards funeral expenses. It also awarded Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for the shock and mental agony suffered by the parents. Thus the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs. 4,94,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
(2.) On appeal by the insurer, the High Court assessed the contribution to the family as Rs. 12,000 per annum. By applying a multiplier of 18, it arrived at the loss of dependency as Rs. 2,16,000. By adding Rs. 5,000 towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 30,000 towards mental agony of parents, the High Court arrived at the total compensation payable as Rs. 2,51,000. Feeling aggrieved by the reduction, the claimants have appealed by special leave.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court was not justified in reducing the amount determined as loss of dependency. The deceased was aged 17 years. The father is an advocate. The mother was aged 32 to 33 years. Having regard to the land holding, family background and prospects of earning, we are of the view that the loss of dependency determined as Rs. 3,84,000 by the Tribunal did not call for interference. There was no justification for the High Court to reduce the loss of dependency to Rs. 2,16,000.;