IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1147 of 2011 ----------------------- OPMV.784/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ------------------------------------ 1. CELINAMMA JOSEPH, W/O. LATE A.K.JOSEPH, PUNCHAKUNNEL HOUSE, PALA.P.O., PALA KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PIN-686 575. 2. JOSHY JOSEPH, S/O LATE A.K.JOSEPH, PUNCHAKUNNEL HOUSE,PALA.P.O., PALA KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PIN-686 575. 3. SHIJO JOSEPH, S/O. LATE A.K.JOSEPH, PUNCHAKUNNEL HOUSE, PALA.P.O., PALA KARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSHY JOSEPH, S/O. LATE A.K.JOSEPH, PUNCHAKUNNEL HOUSE, PALA.P.O., PALA KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PIN-686 575. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1147 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The insurance company is the appellant. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Claimants are the wife and children of a deceased person, aged about 68 years at the relevant time. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,80,850/- as per the details shown below: i) Loss of dependency : Rs.2,40,000.00 (6000 X 12 X 2/3 X 5) ii) Transportation to hospital : Rs. 3,650.00 iii) Damage to clothing and articles : Rs. 500.00 iv) Medical expenses : Rs. 2,300.00 v) Funeral expense : Rs. 9,400.00 vi) Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000.00 vii) Loss of Estate : Rs. 5,000.00 viii) Loss of Love and affection : Rs. 10,000.00 ix) Loss of consortium : Rs. 5,000.00 ---------------------- Total : Rs.2,80,850.00 ========== M.A.C.A No.1147 of 2011 2 2. The challenge is only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant wants to assail the quantum of compensation awarded specifically under the head of loss of dependency. Rs.2,40,000/- is the compensation awarded under that head. Rs.6,000/- was assumed to be the monthly income. 1/3 thereof was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased, 5 has been reckoned as the multiplier and that is perfectly justified by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in reckoning Rs.6,000/- as the monthly income. It was claimed that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. He was an Agriculturalist. He was owning the properties of an extent of 9 acres as per Exts.A11 to A14 title deeds produced. It was a contention of the claimants, though no specific oral evidence was adduced in support of that assertion, that the deceased was managing his properties and was engaging in agricultural operations. No other documentary evidence was produced to place income. The Tribunal was not M.A.C.A No.1147 of 2011 3 persuaded to throw its hands up because of want of specific evidence on the quantum of probable income of the deceased. The Tribunal took note that even if it is assumed that Rs.200/- is the monetary equivalent of the work that the deceased did in respect of his properties, an amount of Rs.6,000/- can safely be assumed to be the monthly income of the deceased. The accident took place on 16.05.2007. It was thus that Rs.6,000/- was reckoned as the monthly income. 4. Property is not lost and it continues to be with the claimants. But all the same, the work input of the deceased has got to be taken into account. The Tribunal reckoned it at Rs.6,000/- per mensem. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal appears to have noted that even a coolie is able to earn an income of Rs.350/- per day in the Kerala context now. 5. We are unable to agree that the Tribunal is guilty of committing any such indiscretion warranting appellate interference in drawing that presumption of prudence. Of course, it is possible for a different Tribunal or a different mind to come to any other figure. But the insignificant difference in such figures cannot by itself persuade us to invoke our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. M.A.C.A No.1147 of 2011 4 Computation of compensation is not a science of exactitude and it certainly belongs to the mixed realm of art and science. With the available inputs, the Tribunal is justified in guesstimating. We are of the opinion that the inference drawn by the Tribunal does not, at any rate, warrant appellate interference. 6. No other contentions are raised. The challenge fails. 7. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/