JUDGMENT
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.
1. A newly married girl died in a motor accident within one month of her marriage. She was a passenger in a bus owned by the Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. She died six days after the accident while in the hospital. The parents of the girl originally filed the application O.P. (M.V.) No. 291 of 1981 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum, seeking compensation for the death of their married daughter. The husband did not join the application and he was subsequently impleaded as a respondent. It appears that the brothers of the deceased, the children of the original applicants were also subsequently impleaded as additional applicants before the Tribunal. According to the applicants the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus while negotiating a curve and consequently the driver and the owner were liable to pay the compensation. The Corporation opposed the claim contending that there was no negligence as alleged. It also appears that they questioned the entitlement of the applicants to receive compensation.
2. In support of the claim the applicants examined the father of the deceased as PW 1 and two other witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 who were co-passengers of the deceased in the bus.
3. The father examined as PW 1 only stated in his evidence that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- ought to be paid as compensation in view of the death of the daughter. It appears that the Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. had even earlier paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the accident.
4. The Tribunal found that the claims allowable were compensation for funeral expenses, pain and suffering of the deceased, the expenses for treatment at the hospital, transportation to the hospital and damage to the clothing making up a sum of Rs. 10,500/-. Subsequently, it corrected the award into a sum of Rs. 15,000/- It is suggested by counsel for the Corporation that the balance must be taken to be compensation for deprivation of love and affection of the daughter. The claim for compensation on the ground of dependency was specifically overruled by the Tribunal by noticing that the father examined as PW 1 had no case that he was getting any financial assistance from the daughter and he had also no case that the daughter would look after him at least during his old age. A reading of the evidence of PW 1 tends to support this observation of the Tribunal.
5. In this appeal learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the pecuniary loss to the estate and shortened expectation of life. There is no formal evidence before the Claims Tribunal that the parties were governed by Marumakhathayam law. But considering the circumstances it is possible to infer that they were governed by the Marumakhathayam law and consequently in the absence of children the mother of the deceased would be the heir under Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act. The mother could therefore claim compensation for the loss to the estate.
6. But the question is whether it has been established that any loss has been suffered by the estate. As observed by a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kayicha Umma ILR 1987 (1) Ker 388:
The beneficiaries have to prove that by the death of the person they lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage. What is reasonable is a question of fact which varies from case to case and has to be determined with reference to the evidence on record. In the absence of statutory guidelines, the court has to make an estimate of the pecuniary loss suffered by the members of the family of the deceased. The court has to evaluate the pecuniary loss resulting from death on the basis of a proper appreciation of the relevant circumstances and hard realities.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents is right in his submission that there is no evidence in this case to show the future prospects of the deceased. There is not even formal evidence of any intention on the part of the deceased to go in for any employment and consequently to make an earning. She appears to have wanted only to live with her husband on marriage. It is argued by the counsel for the applicants by submitting that the parties being Marumakhathayees the duty to look after her parents who were aged 57 and 50 respectively at the relevant time would certainly be on the daughter and as such there has been a loss incurred by the applicants. Even then in the absence of any evidence of or on the probable loss the court is compelled to make only a guess. Not even formal evidence on that score is forthcoming. In such a situation all that can be awarded is only a nominal amount as compensation on this head. Assuming that the daughter would have contributed a sum of Rs. 200/- per month towards the expenses of the appellants, the contribution per year would come to Rs. 2,400/-. Since the father is aged 57 years and the mother 50 years, a multiple of 10 can be adopted in the circumstances. That would mean that the compensation would come to Rs. 24,000/-. Considering the lump sum payment and also considering the various other circumstances which can legitimately be taken note of, we consider that deduction of only Rs. 4,000/- need be made in the circumstances. In that view we find that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- can be awarded as a reasonable compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered by the estate.
8. We therefore allow this appeal in part and modifying the award of the Tribunal award a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation. We make it clear that the person entitled to the compensation is the mother. The Tribunal below was in error in not making appropriate directions while awarding the compensation in terms of Rule 392 of the Kerala Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules. We have therefore felt it necessary to direct that the entire compensation would be payable to the mother of the deceased as legal heir of the deceased. This amount of Rs. 20,000/- will also bear interest at 9 per cent per annum from 16.4.1983 until payment. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.