http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  401 of 2008

PETITIONER: Jayakodi & Ors

RESPONDENT: Branch Manager, N.I.C. Ltd & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/01/2008

BENCH: CJI K. G. Balakrishnan & R.V. Raveendran & J. M. Panchal

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13746 of 2004)

K. G. Balakrishnan CJI :                  Leave granted. Heard learned counsel.          The claimants in the Motor Accident Claim case are the appellants before us. Mathiya lagan  (son of claimants 1 and 2 and brother of claimants 3 to 5) died in a motor accident on  16.12.2001. The Tribunal found that he was aged 17 years, owned 7 acres of land and  managing his agricultural operations. The family was well placed, the father being an  Advocate. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. After  deducting one-third towards living expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal determined the  contribution to the family as Rs.24,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 16, it ar rived  at the loss of dependency as Rs.3,84,000/-. It awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses.  It  also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the shock and mental agony suffered by the  parents. Thus the total compensation awarded by the   Tribunal  was  Rs.4,94,000/-  with   interest  at  9% P.A.   

                                               -2- 2.      On appeal by the Insurer, the High Court assessed the contribution to the family as  Rs.12,000/- per annum. By applying a multiplier of 18, it arrived at the loss of dependency  as  Rs.2,16,000/-.  By adding Rs.5,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- for mental   agony of parents, the High Court arrived at the total compensation payable as Rs.2,51,000/-.   Feeling aggrieved by the reduction, the claimants have appealed by special leave.  

3.      The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court was not justifi ed  in reducing the amount determined as loss of dependency. The deceased was aged 17 years.  The father is an Advocate. The mother was aged 32 to 33 years. Having regard to the land  holding, family background and prospects of earning, we are of the view that the loss of  dependency determined as Rs.3,84,000/- by the Tribunal did not call for interference. There  was no justification for the High Court to reduce the loss of dependency to Rs.2,16,000/-.  

4.      The Tribunal was not however, justified in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- (at the rate of  Rs.50,000/- to each parent)  towards shock and mental agony suffered on account of the death   of their son. The High Court committed the same error by awarding Rs.30,000/- under  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

head. When  a person dies in a  

                                               -3- motor accident and his dependent legal representatives claim compensation, the general  damages is made up of the loss of dependency plus a token sum towards loss of estate. In the   event of a claimant being a spouse another token amount is awarded as loss of consortium.  Actual expenditure incurred for transporting the dead body and the funeral, are also awarded  by  way of special damages. Nothing is awardable under the head of shock and mental agony of the   parents or other legal representatives. (See: N. Sivammal vs. The Managing Director, Pandian   Roadways Corporation  - AIR 1985 SC 106)]. Therefore, the sum awarded under the head of  ’mental agony of parents’ is omitted.  

5.      It was submitted that as the Insurer has not challenged the award of Rs.30,000/- by  the  High Court under the head of ’shock and mental agony of parents’, it should not be disallowe d  in an appeal filed by the claimants. It is true that in an appeal by the claimants for  enhancement, the compensation awarded should not be reduced. But that is with reference to  the ’total compensation’ awarded, which is the aggregate of sums awarded under various heads .  When an appeal is filed by claimants claiming enhancement, the appellate court will calculat e  the just compensation, in accordance with law. If the amount so calculated is in excess of w hat  is awarded, the difference is awarded as additional compensation. If the amount  

                                               -4- calculated is found to be less than or equal to the amount awarded by the court below, then  the  amount awarded by the court below is maintained. But there cannot be any objection for  recalculation of compensation under various heads in accordance with law. So long as the tot al  amount awarded is not less than what is awarded by the court below, there cannot be any  objection if the amount is reduced under any particular head.   

6.      The compensation payable is Rs.3,84,000/- as loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- as loss  of estate and Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses, total being Rs.3,94,000/-. We accordingly allo w  this appeal in part and increase the compensation from Rs.2,51,000/- to Rs.3,94,000/-, with  interest amount @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment as awarded   by the Tribunal. The second appellant (father) and appellants 3 to 5 (sisters and brother) a re  neither dependants nor legal representatives of the deceased. Thus the entire compensation  amount shall be taken by the mother (appellant no.1).