Ramachandran Nair , J.,
The appellants before this Court are the claimants before the Tribunal. Their mother died in a road traffic accident. It is seen that the accident occurred on 27.5.2012 at about 6.a.m while she was standing on the eastern side of National Highway 47 in front of Chandiroor High school. The offending vehicle was a motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-04 K 8679. The deceased succumbed to injuries while she was being taken to the hospital.
2. Before the Tribunal, documentary evidence was produced and finally an amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- has been granted.
3. The Tribunal found that the age of the deceased shown in the application as 58 is not the correct one as the first appellant herein himself is aged 44 years. The age of the deceased shown in the application is 58 years and therefore, the Tribunal assumed that there is no reason to believe that the victim married before attaining 18 years and her age will be around 65 years at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant opposed the said finding. We find that no documentary evidence was produced to show the age of the deceased. Hence, a reasonable fixation had to be made. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal.
4. The next aspect is with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. It was claimed that she was a peeling worker,but no evidence was there to prove that she was a peeling worker. It was also found that the applicants were not depended on the victim at the time of the accident and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation for loss of dependency. The applicants are under the age group of 44-34 at the time of filing the application. Hence we concur with the said finding.
5. The Tribunal has granted compensation in the following manner:
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount granted is reasonable considering the age of the deceased as at the time of the accident.
7. Rs.1000/- has been granted towards transportation expenses. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that towards transportation expenses the Tribunal granted only Rs. 1000/- which is inadequate since she was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, and on the way she died. According to us Rs. 1000/- granted under this item is reasonable.
8. We find that for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- alone is granted. Towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses, going by the decision of the Apex Court reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC) Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/-
respectively, can be awarded. Herein only the funeral expenses alone require enhancement.
9. The next aspect is compensation for pain and suffering.
The Tribunal granted Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering which is reasonable.
10. For compensation for loss of estate Rs. 35,000/- and compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/- have been granted. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that nothing has been granted for the mental shock and agony of the applicants. For loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- can be granted. Apart from the same, for the mental shock and agony of the applicants we grant an amount of Rs.15,000/-.
11. Accordingly, we recompute the compensation in the following manner:
The total compensation will be Rs. 1,96,000/-.(Rupees One lakh Ninetysix Thousand only).
12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount less the amount already deposited within a period of three months and the amount will be apportioned to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal.
The appeal is allowed as above. No costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) AL/-
Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) True copy P.A to Judge fair 11.12