IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1302 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.684/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PLAZA, OPP. NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: --------------------------------- 1. MINI PAPPACHAN, D/O. MARIYAMMA, PUNTHALA VEEDU, MEENAM, PATTAZHY. 2. M. SHIBU, PUNTHALA VEEDU, MEENAM, PATTAZHY. 3. SAJI SAMUEL, CHAKKALAYIL VEEDU, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1302 of 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim,J. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Mother of the claimant, Smt: Mariyamma, died in an accident which occurred while she was travelling on the pillion of a motor cycle driven by the 2nd respondent. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day at the hospital. The claimant is a married daughter of the deceased, who admittedly was residing along with her husband. 2. In the claim petition it is stated that the deceased was at the age of 48 years at the time of accident and she was a widow. It is claimed that she was employed as a shelling worker in a cashew factory. The attendance cards and ESI identity card were produced to prove her employment. Apart from that, document was produced to prove that she was getting family pension at the rate of Rs.1718/- at the time of her death. The Tribunal adopted her monthly income as Rs.3000/- and after deducting Rs.1000/- for personal expenditure, income for the MACA. 1302/05- 2 purpose of computation of the loss of dependency was taken as Rs.24,000/- per annum. Adopting multiplier of 13, an amount of Rs.3,12,000/- was granted towards loss of estate and dependency. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,27,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for appellant- Insurance company vehemently contended that while fixing compensation the Tribunal had not taken note of the fact that the sole claimant, married daughter of the deceased, is not a dependent. It is argued that being a married daughter living with her husband, the deceased mother is not contributing anything to the claimant. Further it is also contended that the family pension reckoned for the purpose of fixing income of the deceased cannot be taken as an income for computing loss of dependency, the same being purely personal income depending on the life of the deceased. 4. Heard counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/ claimant. It is contended that there is clear proof adduced before the Tribunal regarding income earned by the deceased. The deceased was living alone. After spending for her personal needs whatever amount left by the deceased, will be contributed to the claimant, as her sole legal heir, if she would have been MACA. 1302/05- 3 alive. Therefore it is not the mere question of dependency but it is a question of loss of estate, is the contention. Further it is argued that no presumption can be taken that the mother was not contributing anything to the family of a married daughter, considering the fact that she was living alone. 5. On an evaluation of the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the appellant/Insurance company that the method of calculation adopted by the Tribunal in fixing the compensation for loss of dependency is in any way incorrect or improper. Merely because married daughter alone was the claimant, it could not be held that she is not a dependent, since there are no other legal heirs surviving the deceased. However, considering the fact that the deceased was living alone and that the claimant was residing along with her husband, we feel that it is only just and reasonable to fix the contributions by the deceased to the claimant only at 50% of her total earnings. Therefore instead of deducting 1/3rd from the monthly income, the income for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency need be taken as 50%. Therefore we are inclined to reduce the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency from Rs.3,12,000/- to 2,34,000/-. Accordingly the total MACA. 1302/05- 4 compensation is to be re-fixed at Rs.2,49,000/- instead of Rs.3,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the impugned award and reducing the total compensation fixed by the Tribunal from Rs.3,12,000/- to Rs.2,49,000/-. The said amount will carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. The 1st respondent/claimant will be entitled to withdraw the amount already deposited. The appellant/Insurance company is directed to make payment of the balance amount within a period of 3(three) months. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb