IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 2018 of 2007() ----------------------- APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. K.SUDHA, AGED 35 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAN, KARUKULANGARA HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, NEAR CHANDAKADAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. K.RAJINA, AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KARUKULANGARA HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, NEAR CHANDAKADAVU, KOZHIKODE. 3. K.RANJITH, AGED 14 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KARUKULANGARA HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, NEAR CHANDAKADAVU, KOZHIKODE. 4. K.RAMYA, AGED 12 YEARS, D/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KARUKULANGARA HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, NEAR CHANDAKADAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. K.P.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MOHAMMED, SALAM MANZIL, IRUMBUZHI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KVI/405, PANDI AUTOMOBILES BUILDINGS, P.B.NO.10/11, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.2018 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the wife aged 35 years and minor children aged 16 years, 14 years and 12 years of the deceased who was aged 43 years on 29/9/1995 on which day he suffered injuries in a motor accident and succumbed to the same later on the same day. They claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. The deceased, it was claimed, was a workshop proprietor earning a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. Before the tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. 2. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.2,33,500/- as per the details given below: Transport to hospital Rs.500/- Funeral expenses Rs.3,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- M.A.C.A.No.2018/07 2 Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Loss of dependency Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 2/3 x 15) Total Rs.2,33,500/- The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum. 3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is their grievance? Called upon to explain the precise nature of challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are too low. The learned counsel for the insurance company responds with the contention that even assuming that the amounts awarded under those two heads are low, that inadequacy, if any, is offset by the relatively higher amount of compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of estate. The deceased had expired on the date of accident itself and the loss of dependency computed on the basis of multiplier-multiplicand method shows that only 1/3 of the amount is set part for the expenses of the deceased. It is unreasonable to award such a M.A.C.A.No.2018/07 3 high amount to the loss of estate thereafter, contends the counsel for the insurance company. We are satisfied that the total amounts awarded under the heads referred above is adequate and sufficient and the same do not warrant interference. 4. The main plank of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the multiplicand reckoned, that is Rs.1,500/- per mens um, is grossly insufficient and painfully low. Viewed from any angle, a higher amount of multiplicand must have been reckoned, submits the learned counsel for the appellant. According to the appellant, the deceased was running a workshop of his own as proprietor. No better evidence has been adduced in support of this assertion. But the learned counsel for the appellant submits that a tribunal constituted to do rough and ready justice should not hesitate to draw reasonable inferences from proved facts and circumstances. The counsel relies on the F.I.S given at a point of time when the dispute regarding employment was not live at all. Even in the contemporaneous F.I.S Ext.A1, it is stated very specifically that the deceased was running a workshop by name Suneera in the M.A.C.A.No.2018/07 4 town itself. The counsel further submits that it may not be lost sight of that a family consisting of wife and three minor children was depending upon the deceased for their subsistence. In these circumstances, the conclusion that the multiplicand reckoned at Rs.1,500/- is grossly erroneous, contends the learned counsel. 5. We find merit in that contention. The available inputs satisfy the court that the deceased was running a workshop by name Suneera as its proprietor. To come to this conclusion, we have satisfactory indications from Ext.A1 lodged at a point of time when this dispute was not there at all. Even in the absence of specific and tangible evidence, the tribunals which are constituted to render rough and ready justice, would be justified in drawing assumptions and inferences of prudence. The principle will always have to be borne in mind that the burden is on the claimants to place satisfactory materials before the tribunal to persuade the tribunal to award an appropriate amount of compensation. If there would be inadequacy in that, it is only the claimant who can be put to suffer. But this does not mean that inferences of prudence cannot be drawn by the tribunal even in the absence of better evidence. We feel, in the facts and circumstances of this case it can easily be assumed and presumed that the deceased who was running a workshop as M.A.C.A.No.2018/07 5 proprietor and who was the head of the family consisting of five persons, two adults and three minor children, must, at any rate, have been earning an irreducible amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensum. The quantum of compensation awarded for loss of dependency will accordingly have to be enhanced. 6. On the basis of the above discussions we hold that the appellant will be entitled to a further amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 2/3 x 15 minus Rs.1,80,000/-) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest at the rate awarded by the tribunal from the date of the petition. 7. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.2018/07 6 M.A.C.A.No.2018/07 7 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009