ORDER
V. Jagannathan, J.
1. One Sunkavva died in a road accident on 11.08.1995. Her husband and children have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. In the course of evidence, the Tribunal relying on an agreement said to have been entered into between the husband of the deceased and the owner of the vehicle in question as per Ex.R.1, held that the claimants are not entitled, to any sum as compensation because of the said agreement which evidences receipt of Rs. 15,000/- towards full settlement of compensation. It is this finding of the Tribunal that is assailed in this appeal by the claimants.
2. We have heard learned Counsel Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Venkatesh, for sri. C.M. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.
3. Sri. Jadhav, learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal could not have accepted the agreement entered into between the husband of the deceased and the owner and the same is opposed to law and also opposed to the spirit of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this connection, relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act was brought to our attention to contend that even under the Act as per II Schedule, the minimum compensation in the case of fatal accidents is Rs. 50,000/-. But, in the instant case, the owner has forced the claimants to accept Rs. 15,000/- towards the death of Sunkavva.
4. Having regard to the submissions of learned Counsel and perusal of the reasons given by the Tribunal, we are shocked to find that the Tribunal has placed reliance on the agreement said to have been entered between the husband of the deceased and the owner-first respondent and ignored the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly with regard to the minimum compensation payable in the case of death of a person in the road accident. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal has erred in accepting the said agreement and therefore, we accept the arguments submitted by sri. Jadhav in this regard.
5. As the deceased was aged 45 years and was a coolie, her income can be taken at Rs. 50/- per day and after deducting l/3rd towards her expenses the annual income will be Rs. 12,000/- and the appropriate multiplier '13'. After calculation, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,56,000/-. Rs. 10,000/- is to be added towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,76,000/-. Since the owner has already paid Rs. 15,000/-, the same shall be deducted from the total compensation. Hence, the owner of the offending vehicle shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- to the appellants-claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. Appellants-claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,76,000/-. The owner of the offending vehicle-first respondent, shall deposit the balance of compensation in a sum or Rs. 1,51,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of this order.
However, it is left to the Tribunal to disburse the amount among the claimants, by following the law laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas AIR 1994 SC 1631 .