ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J.
1. This appeal is directed against an award granting compensation on death of the son of the appellants aged about 23 years.
2. In this case the deceased was a licensing agent and was doing some other work of LIC and thus he was earning Rs. 4000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs. 1500 per month; applied 16 years multiplier; calculated Rs. 2,88,000/- as compensation; added Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 3,000/- on conveyance and funeral and other religious ceremonies of the deceased son; thus awarded a sum of Rs. 3,01,000 as compensation.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent.
4. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that out of this income of Rs. 4000/- the dependency of the parents and leaving aside personal pocket expenses of Rs. 500/- dependency of the parents was Rs. 3,500/- per month. The age of the mother was 46 and that of father 49 years at the time of accident. Secondly, if future prospects were taken into consideration, then the appellants were entitled to get compensation on the basis of double of the amount of the dependency of Rs. 3500/- per month. Thirdly, compensation should have been awarded in favour of the father also for he is also entitled to compensation.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the father of the deceased was 49 years, he must be earning and there is no dispute that he was running a business establishment and therefore would not be dependent on the son. After marriage the dependency assessed by the learned tribunal was not only appropriate but on higher side. It is also contended that 16 years multiplier had been applied and if the amount of Rs. 3,01,000 is deposited, the interest itself would be nearly double the amount of their dependency every month assessed by the learned tribunal.
6. Having heard the parties counsel, it is apparent that after marriage, the petitioner would not have contributed o the family Rs. 1500 per month for the father is also earning and the family was not wholly dependant on the deceased son. The total amount awarded is Rs. 3,01,000/- If it is invested properly then the appellants are likely to get around Rs. 3000 per month as interest which is nearly double the amount of the monthly dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal. The monthly dependency could not be more than this amount in any case for the father is also an earning member and the deceased was not the sole bread earner. It may also be mentioned that the appellants have one son and one daughter in addition to the deceased person. The daughter is married. It has not come on record as to what the other son is doing. In such circumstances, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation in any manner.
7. As regards the claim of the father the learned counsel for the appellant based his submission on the judgment in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 1987 ACJ 561 (SC). In that case the term ‘legal representative’ has been taken to be in a wider sense. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
12. “….We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Meghjibhai Khimji Vira Vs. Chaturbhai Taljabhai, 1977 ACJ 253 (Gujarat) and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased”.
8. Seeing the ages of the parents and the fact that the father is earning, it would be appropriate to apportion the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal in the ratio of 55:45 in between the mother and the father of the deceased.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.