THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI MACMA NO. 228 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The claimant in OP No. 680 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidentas Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam has come before this Court with the main grievance that the compensation amount of Rs.1.00 lakh granted to her in respect of death of her son Pradeep Kumar due to the accident dated 27.6.1995, is wholly unfair. The claimant laid the claim before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs asserting that on 27.6.1995 at about 6.30 A.M. while her son Pradeep Kumar was coming to his house at Sujathanagar village, a tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 20 U 376/377 driven by the 1st respondent Ravi Madhu in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against him by coming from behind and as the result of which he sustained fatal injuries and was taken to a nearby private nursing home run by Dr. Vijendar, and after he was provided with first aid in the said private nursing home, he was shifted to S.C. Company Hospital, Kothagudem and there he succumbed to the injuries on 29.6.1995. As per the version of the claimant, her deceased son Pradeep Kumar was the sole earning member of her family and except himself, no other person was there to take care of her. Had he been alive, he would have looked after her in her old age and after his death she became a destitute. Therefore, she laid the claim for compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs as against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending tractor and 2 trailer bearing No. AP 20 U 376/377 which caused the accident to her son Pradeep Kumar. The claimant, having made the above assertions, in proof of the same, examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. The Tribunal, relying on the evidence of P.W.1 whose evidence was corroborated with the contents of Exs.A1 to A3, held that due to the negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 20 U 376/377 by the 1st respondent, the deceased received fatal injuries and succumbed to such injuries while undergoing treatment. There is no much controversy as to the accident which occurred due to the negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 20 U 376/377 by its driver. The claimant’s contention was that her deceased son Pradeep Kumar was the only earning member of her family and he was taking care of her during his life time and after his death, she became a destitute and there is none to take care of her. The Tribunal, though observed that had the deceased been alive, definitely he would have assisted the petitioner and contributed his income towards her maintenance, without taking into consideration of her evidence given in this regard, and her evidence that the deceased was cultivating 16.00 acres of land owned and possessed by their family at Raghavapuram village, had awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh and this according to her is wholly unfair and was not in consonance with the evidence on record. 3 During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while pointing out the flaws in the award of the Tribunal, had brought to the notice of this Court that multiplier method was not adopted. He also stated that though it was deposed by P.W.1 in her evidence that her deceased son was looking after Ac.16.00 of land owned and possessed by their family at Raghavapuram village, the said evidence was simply ignored and a lump sum amount of Rs.1.00 lakh was awarded, as the compensation so awarded was not fair and reasonable compensation, the appellant/claimant sought the indulgence of this Court. The award dated 8.8.2001 impugned in the present appeal is perused by me. The grievance of the appellant/claimant is in two folds. (1) The evidence given by her regarding the land owned and possessed by her family and the income which the deceased was getting through cultivation, has not been appreciated in a perspective while computing the compensation. (2) The second limb of her contention is that though it is incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to assess the compensation by adopting multiplier method, the same has not been done. There is no dispute in respect of the fact that the deceased was only the son of the claimant. In fact, an observation is made by the Tribunal in the award at page 4 of the award that “the deceased was aged 26 years old by the date of his death. Had he been alive, definitely he would have assisted his mother and contributed his income towards her maintenance and due to his sudden demise, she lost such a hope and became a 4 destitute”. It may be true that the claimant, though pleaded that their family was possessing 16 acres of land at Raghavapuram village, did not choose to produce any evidence. But there is no much controversy as to age of deceased. As per Ex.A3-post mortem certificate the deceased was aged about 26 years by the date of his death. An able bodied person of 26 years old can easily earn Rs.100/- per day. Even if 50% of such income is deducted towards his personal expenditure, his income contribution to his family comes to Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged 26 years by the date of his death, the relevant multiplier to be applied is ‘17’ as per the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1, if the annual loss of income contribution of the deceased to his family is multiplield by ‘17’, the total compensation under the head of loss of income contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.3,06,000/-. In addition to this, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate as per the judgment of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Limitged Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2. The claimant thus is entitled to get total compensation of Rs.3,36,000/-. A perusal of the impugned award passed by the Tribunal shows that a lump sum amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh was granted without specifying the compensation amount which the claimant is entitled to under various 1 (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 5 heads. The concept of just compensation is dealt under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Just compensation has to be determined on the foundation of fairness and reasonableness and equity and on acceptable legal standard. It is well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost, but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation. In the instant case, the Tribunal seems to have not awarded fair and reasonable compensation despite its observation that the claimant has lost the hope of getting the assistance of her only son due to his sudden demise. Had the deceased been alive, he would have contributed his substantial income towards maintenance of the petitioner. Since the approach adopted by the Tribunal in granting a lump sum amount of Rs.1.00 lakh without looking into the agony of the claimant who has lost the hopes of having the assistance of her son in her old age and become a destitute after his death, efforts need to be made for grant of just compensation though the amount if any granted towards compensation cannot substitute the life of the deceased which is lost. As the amount of compensation of Rs.3,36,000/- which the petitoner is entitled to get exceeds the claim made by her, she has to pay the deficit court fee. Having regard to the conclusion arrived at by me above, the appeal filed by the claimant against the award in OP No. 680 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidentas Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, deserves to be allowed by granting compensation of 6 Rs.3,36,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Thirty Six Thousands only) to the appellant/claimant as against compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. The compensation amount of Rs.3,36,000/- is payble to her together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization by the respondents jointly and severally along with costs. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Dt. 12.12.2018 KR