IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 802 of 2005() ----------------------------- OPMV.3137/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS ---------------------------------- 1. SMT.PUSHPA, W/O.BHARATHAN. 2. SMT.SINDHU, WIDOW OF MADHU. 3. AKSHAY (MINOR), S/O.LATE MADHU. 4. ANISHA (MINOR), D/O. LATE MADHU. (MINOR APPELLANTS REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 2ND APPELLANT HEREIN). ALL ARE RESIDING AT KARIKKANTHARA HOUSE, KUTTUMUKKU, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.LEJU T.BALAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. K.K.BABU, S/O.KUNJUNNI, RESIDING AT KURIAKOTT HOUSE, AMBAKKAD P.O., PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ORISON COMPLEX, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs R. BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.1118 of 2005 and M.A.C.A.No.802 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 Order/Judgment Basant, J. C.M.Appl.No.1118 of 2005 This petition is to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed and the delay is condoned. M.A.C.A.No.802 of 2005 Claimants are the appellants. They are widow, mother and two minor children of the deceased, a person aged about 33 years on the date of the accident. The accident took place on 24.9.2000. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the date of the accident itself. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,28,000/- as compensation as per the details given below: 1) Loss of dependency (2000x12x 2/3 x 17) - Rs.2,72,000/- 2) Compensation for loss of love and affection - Rs.15,000/- 3) Compensation for loss of consortium - Rs.15,000/- 4) Compensation for pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/- 5) Compensation for loss of estate - Rs.10,000/- C.M.Appl.1118/05 & MACA.802/05 2 6) Funeral Expenses - Rs.5,000/- 7) Transport to hospital -Rs.1,000/- ---------------- Total - Rs.3,28,000/- ========== 2. The learned counsel for the appellants assails the quantum of compensation awarded under all heads. It is unnecessary to expatiate on the other grounds as we find that on all other heads reasonable compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal. At any rate, the total compensation awarded under all the heads put together appears to be absolutely reasonable. 3. We now come to the main contention. The counsel urges that the amount of Rs.2000/- reckoned as monthly income of the deceased is grossly inadequate. The evidence indicates that he was a painter by profession. His widow and two minor children were solely dependent on his income. They were living on such income of the deceased. His father and mother were also alive on the date of his death. They are said to be dependent on him. In these circumstances, counsel argues that the amount of Rs.2000/- reckoned as monthly income is grossly inadequate. C.M.Appl.1118/05 & MACA.802/05 3 4. The learned counsel further argues relying on paragraph 32 of the Sarla Verma's case [ (2009) 6 SCC 121] that deduction of one-third of the monthly income of the deceased as his personal expenses is not justified. At any rate, the four members are, indisputably there in the nuclear family, i.e., himself, his wife and two children, not to speak of the father and the mother. The counsel argues that in these circumstances, deduction of one-third as personal expenses of the deceased is not justified. 5. The learned counsel for the insurance company, on the contrary, contends that reasonable inferences have been drawn by the Tribunal about monthly income in favour of the claimants notwithstanding absence of specific evidence. The monthly income of Rs.2000/- and deduction of one-third for the personal expenses of the deceased are absolutely fair, reasonable and just, contends learned counsel for the insurance company. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We must remind ourselves that the Parliament as early as in 1994 had assumed that even for a non-earning person Rs.15,000/- per annum can be assumed to be the annual income. Six years had elapsed on the date of the accident after the Parliament pressed C.M.Appl.1118/05 & MACA.802/05 4 into service such a presumption of prudence under entry 6 of the II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that at any rate four souls were depending on the deceased and they were keeping body soul together in 2000. We are certainly of the opinion that it would have been absolutely reasonable in the circumstances to assume that the deceased must have been earning an income of Rs.3000/- per month. 7. Coming to the question of the extent of deduction that can be made from the monthly earnings of the deceased, we must note that Sarla Verma's case (supra) cannot be reckoned as inflexible authority for the deductions permissible. The deceased was a painter and his work involves manual labour. Higher expenses for such an earning member can certainly be fairly assumed. We take note of the II schedule of the M.V.Act which also standardizes the personal income to be deducted, at one-third. We must note that the total monthly income that we are assuming is only Rs.3000/-. All miscellaneous expenses incurred in connection with the employment of the deceased will also have to be borne in mind. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the deduction of one-third by the Tribunal for the C.M.Appl.1118/05 & MACA.802/05 5 personal expenses of the deceased does not, in the circumstances of this case, warrant any interference. 8. That would mean that the claimants-appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs.1,36,000/- as compensation, i.e., Rs.3000 x 12 x 2/3 x 17, i.e., Rs.4,08,000 minus 2,72,000 = Rs.1,36,000/-. We are satisfied that the appeal can succeed only to the above extent. 9. In the result: a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) It is held that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,36,000/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. c) Interest shall be paid on the entire compensation amount as directed by the Tribunal. c) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd C.M.Appl.1118/05 & MACA.802/05 6