JUDGMENT
Hariharan Nair, J.
1. In this appeal the owner and insurer challenge the claim with regard to quantum of compensation payable in respect of the accident which took place at 7.00 a.m. on 8.11.1986 resulting in the death of Chacko Mathew who was the predecessor of the petitioners who are respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in this appeal.
2. The deceased was aged 65 years at the time of the accident. The court below passed an award for Rs. 74,750 out of which Rs. 72,000 was towards the loss of earnings for the dependants on the assumption that the victim would have survived with earning capacity for another 10 years and would have set apart at least Rs. 600 per mensem out of his income of Rs. 900 per mensem derived from a petty business in hill-produce.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the multiplier adopted in the case and the multiplicand are both incorrect. It is pointed out that there was no reliable evidence to conclude that the victim was having income at the rate of Rs. 900 per mensem as concluded by the court below. The other contention of the appellants is that the children of the deceased were of the age ranging from 28 to 40 years and that they are not actually dependants of the deceased.
4. We have heard both sides.
5. We find some substance in the contention of the appellants. The conclusion of the court below that the deceased would have continued to live with earning capacity for another 10 years, is not acceptable. It is true that there is no clear evidence to arrive at the precise income earned by the deceased; but in a case of this nature, conjecture to some extent is inevitable. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances as also the evidence adduced, we are of the view that there was nothing improper on the part of the court below to proceed on the assumption that the deceased would have set apart at least Rs. 600 for his family out of his probable income of Rs. 900 per mensem. It is unnecessary in a case of this nature to consider whether the major children of the deceased were actually being paid any precise amount out of his earnings. Even in the absence of such evidence the children of the deceased can very well be taken as dependants.
6. The court below has awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,500 towards pain and suffering. It is true that the victim in this case survived for 25 minutes only after the incident, but even so, he would have suffered substantial pain and suffering during that period and hence in the nature of the case, it is safe to allow a sum of Rs. 5,000 on that ground. The court below has already awarded a sum of Rs. 100 for transport to hospital, Rs. 150 towards damages for loss of clothings and Rs. 2,500 towards funeral expenses. These are quite admissible.
7. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the multiplier to be adopted in the case can be reduced from 10 to 8, since the victim was aged 65 years. The compensation payable towards the loss to the dependants has to be scaled down accordingly. The actual loss in this regard is fixed at Rs. 57,600 (Rs. 600 x 12 x 8) including Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 2,750 allowed for the funeral expenses, loss of clothing and transport to hospital, the total amount payable to the claimants is thus refixed at Rs. 65,350. All other directions in the award of the court below are upheld.
Appeal is disposed of with the modifications aforementioned.