IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1133 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.2922/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1,2 AND 4 IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. ZEENA JAMES,W/O.LATE JAMES, PEEDIAKKAL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O. 2. ARATHI (MINOR) AGED 8 YEARS, D/O.LATE JAMES,REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND-MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT ZEENA JAMES, PEEDIAKKAL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O. 3. MARGRETT,W/O.LONAN JOSEPH, PEEDIAKKAL HOUSE,PANAGAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------ 1. M.K.MAHAMOOD @ MOHAMMED, RABIYA MANZIL, P.O.MUNDALUR,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.P.JAYCHANDRAN, KALLIKANDI HOUSE, SOUTH OF HIGH SCHOOL, KEEAHALLOOR VILLAGE, THALASERY TALUK. 3. THE UNITED INIDA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, COCHIN-11. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.1133 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT R.BASANT, J. Claimants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants, claimant No.3 having expired after the filing of the petition. They claim compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of the deceased, a person aged about 28 years on the date of the accident, the husband of the 1st accused, aged 25 years; father of the 2nd accused, aged about 4 years and son of the 3rd accused, aged about 55 years. He was a driver by profession. The death was instantaneous after the accident occurred. An amount of Rs.11.48 lakhs was claimed as compensation. Tribunal awarded 2.46 lakhs as compensation. 2. Claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed. In particular they assail the compensation awarded under 3 heads. 3. First of all it is contended that the deceased was aged 28 years and his wife/the 1st claimant was aged only 25 years at M.A.C.A. No.1133 of 2006 2 the time of the accident. The award of only an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss of conjugal society is totally insufficient and unjustified, contends counsel. 4. It is then contended that the 2nd claimant/minor daughter was aged only 4 years and the parents were aged 55 and 65 years at the time of death of the deceased. The compensation awarded for loss of love and affection at Rs.10,000/- is unrealistic. The same may be enhanced, it is prayed. 5. Finally and more particularly it is contended that the monthly earnings of the deceased reckoned for the purpose of computing compensation under the head of loss dependency is totally insufficient and unrealistic. Deceased was without any dispute a skilled driver. The very case is that he met with his death while he was driving a vehicle. Ext.A8 document produced shows that he was a driver duly licenced. Even for a person who is not employed, in 1994, the law presumes that Rs.1,250/- can be reckoned as the monthly earnings. The monthly earnings of the deceased, a skilled driver, 4 years thereafter in 1998 though it was asserted to be Rs.5,000/- per mensem, was reckoned by M.A.C.A. No.1133 of 2006 3 the Tribunal only as Rs.1,500/-. This is incorrect. As claimed by the claimants, monthly income must be reckoned as Rs.5,000/-, it is urged. 6. In the absence of better and more specific evidence, we are satisfied that reasonable computation can be made and fair and reasonable assumptions can be drawn by the tribunal. From the admitted fact that the deceased was a skilled driver duly licenced and the fact that he was maintaining a family of 3 members, in addition to his parents on the date of his death, we find it easy to come to the conclusion that his earnings can safely be reckoned at least at Rs.2,000/- even in the absence of better evidence. The claimants are thus entitled for a further amount of Rs.72,000/- [(2,000 X 2/3) X 12 X 18=2,8,000 - 2,16,000 = Rs.72,000/-] 7. We are further satisfied in the circumstances of the case that the loss of compensation can be raised to an amount of Rs.25,000/- from Rs.10,000/- and the compensation for loss of love and affection can be raised to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.10,000/-. The appeal succeeds to the above extent. M.A.C.A. No.1133 of 2006 4 8. In the result: a) The appeal is allowed; b) The impugned award is modified and the appellants are held entitled to a further amount of Rs.97,000/- (Rupees Ninety Seven thousand only) as shown above with interest and cost as already awarded. In as much as the father of the deceased is no more, it is agreed that the amount payable to him as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal can now be paid to the 3rd appellant, ie. the mother of the deceased. It is so directed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) rtr/-