IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1205 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.334/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIOENRS. ------------------------------------- 1. H.UMMER BASHA, AGED 51YEARS, S/O.H.HEERA SAHEB, REIDING HANGARAKATE HOUSE, BABSHA MOHALLE, POST GANGULI, 576 216, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 2. ASIYA BANU, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.UMMER BASHA, RESIDING IN HARGARKATE HOUSE, BABSHA MOHALLA, POST GANGULI, 576 216, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 3. ZAREENA, AGED 23 EYARS, D/O.UMMER BASHA, RESIDING IN HANGARKATE HOUSE, BABSHA MOHALLA, POST GANGULLI 576 216, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DIST. KARNATAKA STATE. 4. H.ASIF MASOOD, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.UMMER BASHA, RESIDING HANGARKATE HOUSE, BABSHA MOHALLA, POST GANGULLI 576 216, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPPI DISTRICT. KARNATAKA STATE. 5. H.SABEENA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.UMMER BASHA, RESIDING IN HANGARKATE HOUSE, BABSHA MOHALLA, POST GANGULLI 576 216. KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS. ------------------------------------------ 1. SAYED ZAIN MASHOOR, V.C.BUNGALOW, BEACH ROAD, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, 673 305. 2. BABURAJ U.P. S/O.RAMAN, AGED 26 YEARS, UNNUKUTTER PURAYIL VEEDU, PO,PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKDOE, PUTHIYAPPA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 021. DRIVER OF CWMS BUS KL.11 1663. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SREENIDHI BUILDING, NARAYANA NAGAR, VADAKARA, INSURER OF CWMS BUS KL.11 1663, POLICY NO. 441603/328,850/MV 99/8008/NB FROM 30.3.1999 TO 29.3.2000. ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN FOR R2 ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 1205 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellants are the petitioners in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They are the mother and siblings of the deceased, who died in a motor accident. The appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent, Insurance Company. Since insurance is admitted and the question raised in this appeal relates only to the quantum, we are not issuing notice to respondents 1 and 2 and we are disposing of the appeal on merits by consent. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income at Rs.2,500/- He M.A.C.A.No. 1205 of 2005 2 pointed out the discussion in this regard in page 7 of the award, which reads as follows: “Th petitioners could also bring out evident to the effect that the deceased passed various technical examinations in various trades like radio and electricians course etc. So no doubt the deceased was a youngster with prospectus and his position cannot b equated with that of a man expected to get only a notional income. May be it is true that th petitioners could not produce evidence as to the exact income of the deceased. But it is equally important to not that they could prove and establish that he was a driver by calling and that he was qualified in various trades. So it will be only reasonable to fix his income at Rs.2,500/- p.m. and accordingly I do so.” 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that having regard to the fact that the deceased was a driver by M.A.C.A.No. 1205 of 2005 3 profession, under the Minimum Wages Act, the Tribunal should have fixed the income at a higher level. He further submits that only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 5. As far as the question of income is concerned, the accident took place in 2000. There is no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the income of the deceased. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to enhance the income. We feel that no complaint can be raised against the income fixed at Rs.2,500/- We award a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants then contended that the amount awarded towards transportation is very low. Only Rs.2,000/- is awarded. He points out that the deceased was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut and then he was taken to Udupi. There was a claim for Rs.7,000/- We feel that the M.A.C.A.No. 1205 of 2005 4 appellants should be granted Rs.3,000/- more transportation charges. 8. The appellants are justified in demanding higher interest. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Supe Dei v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ((2009) 4 SCC 513). Having regard to the year of the accident, we feel that 7.5% interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation can be granted. 9. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. It is ordered that the amount already awarded to the appellants will bear interest at the rate of 7.5%, instead of 6%. That amount can be realised from the third respondent. The appellants are also entitled to realise Rs.8,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The third respondent will deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal M.A.C.A.No. 1205 of 2005 5 as also the amount, which we have awarded, within a period of two months from today. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm