IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 646 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1627/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. KANIKUNJU, AGED 54 YEARS, SON OF SAIDALI 2. SULFATH, AGED 47 YEARS, WIFE OF KANIKUNJU. 3. SHEBEENA, 26 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KANIKUNJU, ALL APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT VADAKKATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAPPATTIPARAMBU, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. T.R.GOPI, S/O.RAMAN, PARVATHI BHAVAN, IRITTI ROAD, MATTANUR P.O., THALASSERY. 2. DINESHAN AMBAN, S/O.KUNJIKANNAN, THUMBATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, MATTANUR P.O., THALASSERY. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COCHIN-682 016. BY// THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 646 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the father, mother and sister of the deceased. The deceased was a person aged about 22 years. He was allegedly employed as a Mechanic. His monthly income was claimed to be Rs.4,000/-. He was unmarried. The Tribunal, on the basis of the materials before it, came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,22,003/- as compensation. That amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The details of the amount awarded, which are available in paragraph 13 of the impugned award, is extracted below: i. Transportation and funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- ii. Shock, pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000/- iii. Loss of dependency : Rs.1,92,003/- iv. Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/- v. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 5,000/- ----------------- Total : Rs.2,22,003/- ----------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 646/2009 2 Loss of dependency was calculated as per the details shown below: i. Contribution upto the age of 28 -Rs.16,000 x 6 (i.e. Rs.24,000x2/3x6) : Rs. 96,000/- ii. After the marriage after deducting further one - third - Rs.10,667 x 9 (i.e. Rs.2,000x12x2/3x2/3x9): Rs. 96,003/- ----------------- Total: : Rs.1,92,003/- ----------------- 2. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants only submits that the Tribunal was not justified in reckoning only Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. There is absolutely nothing produced before the Tribunal to show the employment, income, qualification or capabilities of the deceased. The Tribunal, in this state of affairs, found it only fair, just and proper to draw the inference of prudence that the appellant would have been earning Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The Tribunal assumed that the deceased would have got married at the age of 28 and that till then, the claimants would have been entitled to a contribution of two-thirds of the total earnings of the deceased. Thereafter also it was found that the claimants would have got 1/3rd less of M.A.C.A. NO. 646/2009 3 such amount. 3. We are unable to find any merit in the challenge raised against the impugned award. The Tribunal, according to us, has committed no error in drawing the presumption of prudence permissible under law, in the absence of any better evidence, that the deceased must have been earning Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The assumption of the Tribunal that even after the marriage of the deceased, the parents and siblings would be entitled to a contribution 1/3rd less than two-thirds of the income is again, according to us, absolutely fair, just and reasonable. At any rate, the challenge at the instance of the appellants against the quantum of compensation fixed for loss of dependency does not warrant appellate interference. The challenge fails. 4. This appeal is, in the circumstances, dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO. 646/2009 4 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.646/2009 JUDGMENT 25th March, 2009