R. Sulochana Vs. Ullgannal and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- order1. special leave granted.2. the short question is in regard to the quantum of compensation. the accident took place on 6-6-1979 which caused the death of a young unmarried man aged about 21 years. the mother of the deceased aged about 45 years was the sole claimant before the tribunal.3. the claim for compensation was laid on the averment that the deceased was working as a mechanic and was earning about rs 600 per month. the tribunal took the view that he would be retaining about rs 100 for pocket expenses and contributing the remaining rs 500 to the family. the tribunal, however, proceeded on the premises that out of the said contribution the contribution of the mother could be worked out at rs 100 per month. employing 15 years' multiplier factor, the tribunal determined the compensation at rs 18,000 and awarded the same with 6% interest. we are afraid that the tribunal took a very conservative approach.4. we have no reason to doubt the statement that the deceased was employed and was earning about rs 600 per month. if the family comprised of the deceased and his mother we think that a large part of the income would be spent on the maintenance of the family. true it is that the mother, who was aged about 45 years would not have received the same benefit from the son's earning for more than five years because in the meantime the boy would have married. we are, therefore, of the opinion that keeping these factors in mind, it would be appropriate to award a sum of rs 30,000 by way of compensation with interest as directed under the impugned order. the appeal will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The short question is in regard to the quantum of compensation. The accident took place on 6-6-1979 which caused the death of a young unmarried man aged about 21 years. The mother of the deceased aged about 45 years was the sole claimant before the Tribunal.

3. The claim for compensation was laid on the averment that the deceased was working as a Mechanic and was earning about Rs 600 per month. The Tribunal took the view that he would be retaining about Rs 100 for pocket expenses and contributing the remaining Rs 500 to the family. The Tribunal, however, proceeded on the premises that out of the said contribution the contribution of the mother could be worked out at Rs 100 per month. Employing 15 years' multiplier factor, the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs 18,000 and awarded the same with 6% interest. We are afraid that the Tribunal took a very conservative approach.

4. We have no reason to doubt the statement that the deceased was employed and was earning about Rs 600 per month. If the family comprised of the deceased and his mother we think that a large part of the income would be spent on the maintenance of the family. True it is that the mother, who was aged about 45 years would not have received the same benefit from the son's earning for more than five years because in the meantime the boy would have married. We are, therefore, of the opinion that keeping these factors in mind, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs 30,000 by way of compensation with interest as directed under the impugned order. The appeal will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.