IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 226 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.2849/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. SHIRLY GEORGE, W/O.SRI.GEORGE P. GEORGE, MAVELIL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. GEORGE M. GEORGE, S/O. SRI.GEORGE P. GEORGE, MAVELIL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THOMAS M. GEORGE, S/O. SRI.GEORGE P. GEORGE, MAVELIL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. ANNAMMA GEORGE, W/O. SRI. M.G. GEORGE MAVELIL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. (APPELLANTS TWO AND THREE ARE MINORS ARE ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER THE FIRST APPELLANT.) BY ADV. SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3: --------------- 1. THANKAMMA GEORGE, MUNDAKAL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R.2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO. 226 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the death of the husband of the first appellant, remaining appellants being the other legal heirs of the deceased. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. The main ground raised is about the low income fixed for the deceased in the computation of loss of dependency. Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposed enhancement for the reason that no tenable evidence was produced to substantiate the income of the deceased. Even though the evidence produced may not be adequate, it is clear from the evidence considered by the Tribunal that deceased was engaged in business in rubber. We, therefore, feel the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,750/- per month can be treated as net income of the deceased for the purpose of granting compensation for loss of dependency. This will lead M..A.C.A. NO. 226/2006 2 to eligible compensation of Rs.3,36,000/- for loss of dependency as against Rs.2,24,000/- granted by the Tribunal. Besides this, we feel Rs.15,000/- granted should account only towards compensation for loss of consortium. We, therefore, grant another Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection for the children. The additional compensation granted by us will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till date of payment. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE (HARUN-UL-RASHID) JUDGE sp/ M..A.C.A. NO. 226/2006 3 C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO. 226/2006 JUDGMENT 4th December, 2008