- (1.) THE appeal has been preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the award of Rs.1, 01,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3, 50,000/-. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent no one appeared on behalf of the respondent and hence this court decides to dispose the case on merits with available materials on record.
(2.) THE case of the claimant was that his father Arumugam was riding a by-cycle on 2.5.1991, which was hit by a car driven by the first respondent in rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident his father Arumugam sustained injuries and died. Hence the claimant filed the claim petition to the tune of Rs.3, 50,000/- and the same was resisted by the third respondent-Insurance Company. The Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence found that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.1, 01,000/- towards compensation. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant, being the only son, who lost his mother even before the death of his father in the accident, filed the claim petition. In the absence of both father and mother he was left like a orphan. Hence the claimant should be awarded more amount. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3, 500/- per month, whereas the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.2000/- per month. He also assailed the award contending that 2/3 of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and only a sum of Rs.800/- per month out of Rs.2000/- was taken as monthly contribution to the family. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in further deducting 1/3 after after the deduction of 2/3 from the monthly income of the deceased.
(3.) AS rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/-and after deducting 2/3 it took only Rs.800/- as monthly contribution to the family. The annual contribution was arrived as Rs.800 X 12= Rs.9600/-. The loss of income is Rs.96, 000/- X 15 multiplier = Rs.1, 44,000/-. The Tribunal further deducted 1/3 towards unexpected expenses and uncertainty of life. After deducting 1/3 from Rs.1, 44,000/- only a sum of Rs.96, 000/- was awarded towards loss of income. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal is patently illegal. When monthly income was fixed at Rs.2000/- per month, only 1/3 should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and if 1/3 is deducted from Rs.2000/-, the monthly contribution of the deceased would be Rs.1333/- and the annual contribution would be Rs.1333 X 12 = 15996/-. The proper multiplier to be adopted is 15 and the loss of income should be Rs.15996 X 15 = 2, 39,940/-. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.500/- towards transportation and the same was granted by the Tribunal. Towards damage to cloth and property a sum of Rs.1500/- was sought and the same was declined by the Tribunal. However taking into consideration the factor that the cloth and properties would have damaged at the time of accident, a sum of Rs.1000/- is awarded by this court. Though a sum of Rs.5000/- was sought for towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal declined to give the same. The approach of the Tribunal is not correct. For funeral expenses the claimant has to be paid a sum of Rs.2500/-.;