IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 893 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.599/2003 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. MARY, W/O. LATE MATHEW CHACKO @ ANTONY, AGED 55 YEARS, PULICKAL HOUSE(PARAYANMURIYIL), EZHUPUNNA, EZHUPUNNA SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK. 2. TREESA, D/O. LATE MATHEW CHACKO, AGED 40 YEARS -DO- -DO-. 3. SINI, D/O.LATE MATHEW CHACKO, AGED 35 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 4. LISSY, D/O.LATE MATHEW CHACKO, AGED 28 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SABU MATHEW, S/O.ITTOOP MATHEW, AGED NOT KNOWN, ARACKAL HOUSE, VAIKKARA, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STERLING TOURS INDIA (P) LTD., ERNAKULAM. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, AROOR BRANCH, AROOR-688 534. ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimants are the appellants. They claimed compensation for the death of Shaji Mathew, son of the first claimant and brother of the other claimants, who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 20/1/2003 and succumbed to such injuries while undergoing treatment after a period of 24 days. Against a total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by way of compensation, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 7 in the impugned award which we extract below: Head Amount (Rs.) Transportation, carriage of dead body and funeral expenses etc. 5,000/- pain and suffering 15,000/- (death after 24 days) treatment expenses 10,000/- (bills for Rs.7805/- has produced) loss of love and affection 10,000/- loss of expectation of life 5,000/- loss of dependency 1,80,000/- (1,500 x 12 x 2/3 x 15) Total Amount 2,25,000/- M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2008 2 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company/3rd respondent has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the quantum of compensation awarded under the various heads are not sufficient and satisfactory. It is first of all contended that the deceased was a skilled carpenter and he was earning an income of Rs.190/- per day as per the employment certificate Ext.A9 issued by his employer. The tribunal had reckoned only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. This is grossly insufficient, it is contended. The learned counsel for the appellants further contends that only an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded as compensation for pain and suffering notwithstanding the fact that the deceased suffered very serious injuries and endured the trauma for a period of 24 days. No separate amount is awarded under the head of extra nourishment and bystanders expenses though the deceased had undergone treatment as an in-patient M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2008 3 for a period of 24 days, it is pointed out. 4. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We take note that the deceased was a skilled worker, a carpenter. We are satisfied that for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency Rs.4,000/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income. In coming to the conclusion, we take note of the presumption of prudence permitted under Section 6 of the second schedule of the M.V.Act. We also take note of the decisions in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2001 SC 3218] and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar [2008 ACJ 1488] where the Supreme Court has accepted that even in the absence of better evidence, a non- earning home maker as also an unskilled manual worker can safely be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensum. We take note of Ext.A9 certificate as also the fact that the deceased was a person aged 34 years. The probable future increase in income must also be realistically taken note of. The learned counsel for the insurance company promptly points out that the deceased was an unmarried person and going by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. D.T.C [(2009)6 SCC 121] half of the M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2008 4 income must have been deducted towards his personal expenses. 5. We agree with the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the insurance company points out that the tribunal had reckoned 15 as the multiplier whereas the mother of the deceased was aged between 50-55 years. We agree that going by Sarla Verma (Supra) 11 alone can be reckoned as the multiplier. We are satisfied that for pain and suffering as also extra nourishment and bystander's expense, further amounts of compensation are liable to be granted. For the loss of estate, an amount of Rs.5,000/- has also been granted though described as loss of expectation of life. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of 93,800/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal as per the details shown below: i) Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- (Rs.20,000/- minus Rs.15,000/-) ii) Extra nourishment and Rs.4,800/- bystander expenses (24 days x Rs.200/-) (no amount awarded by the tribunal) M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2008 5 iii) Loss of dependency Rs.84,000/- [Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x ½ x 11) - Rs.1,80,000/- ------------------- Total Rs.93,800/- ======== 7. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that the tribunal has omitted to award any interest on the amount awarded. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that reasonable interest is liable to be awarded. We therefore direct that interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment has to be paid to the appellants. Proportionate cost as stipulated in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943] is also liable to be awarded. 8. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.93,800/- (Rupees ninety three thousand eight hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We direct that interest be paid on the entire amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2008 6 the claim to the date of payment. d) Proportionate cost before the tribunal shall be paid as per the decision in Jeena (Supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2008 7 M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2008 8 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010