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. 2552 of 2008(B) ----------------------- O.P(MV) NO.1246/2005 OF M.A.C.T, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT : 2ND PETITIONER ---------------------------- CYRIAC THOMAS, VERUNKAL HOUSE, MEVELLOOR KARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, 22/332, THIRUVONAM NAGAR, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN-22. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KURIAKOSE, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MEVELLOOR KARA, VELLOOR. 2. REJU MATHEW, MALYAKAL HOUSE, MULAKULAM P.O., NEAR KUNNAPPALLY MILK SOCIETY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., COCHIN. ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.2552 of 2008-B ***************************** Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant No.2 before the Tribunal is the appellant. He along with his mother had staked claim for compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of the brother/son of the claimants - George Thomas, who suffered injuries in a road traffic accident, which took place on 31.12.2004 and succumbed to the injuries on 20.01.2005. The Tribunal had awarded a total amount of Rs.1,04,000/- as compensation. The mother of the appellant expired during the pendency of the proceedings and the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The 3rd respondent/insurance company has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. The dispute is only regarding the quantum of compensation payable. 3. The quantum of compensation awarded is assailed on various grounds. Primarily it is contended that the amounts awarded under the head of loss of dependency (Rs.80,000/-) and treatment expenses (Rs.5,000/-) are not adequate or sufficient. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. M.A.C.A No.2552 of 2008-B 2 We are satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency - Rs.80,000/- is not sufficient. Following the principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the amount due deserves to be re-worked. The monthly income has to be assessed reasonably. One half will have to be deducted towards personal expenses and the appropriate multiplier as stipulated in Sarla Verma (supra) will have to be adopted. 5. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of treatment expenses, we find that only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. The appellant has produced a document before this Court, which suggests that hospital bills for inpatient treatment from 31.12.2004 to 20.01.2005 itself came to above Rs.96,835/- (produced as Annexure-F before this Court). The medical bills produced also add up to an amount of Rs.1,11,356/-. The Tribunal had reckoned only Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income and the appellant relies on Annexure-E certificate produced to contend that the deceased was a general merchant and a member of the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi. 6. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we M.A.C.A No.2552 of 2008-B 3 are certainly persuaded to agree that the quantum of compensation awarded deserves to be re-worked. The medical bills produced have not been properly proved and the same requires verification. No satisfactory reasons have been shown for not producing the same before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was hence unable to take into account these bills now produced. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the ideal course to be followed by this Court would be to set aside the impugned award and direct the Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh after giving the appellant an opportunity to adduce all further evidence that is relevant. All documents produced along with I.A.No.2544 of 2011 shall be returned by the Registry to the appellant to enable him to produce the same before the Tribunal. 8. In the result: i) This appeal is allowed in part; ii) The impugned award is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of O.P(MV) No.1246 of 2005 afresh in accordance with law after giving the appellant an opportunity to adduce all further relevant evidence; iii) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on M.A.C.A No.2552 of 2008-B 4 01.12.2011 to continue with the proceedings; iv) Inasmuch as there is no challenge against the amount already awarded, we are satisfied that the amount already in deposit can be released to the appellant in accordance with the directions in the impugned award. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/