IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 811 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/10/2006 IN OPMV.7/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------ 1. PREMAN, S/O.KOCHRAPPAN 2. USHA, D/O.KOCHRAPPAN 3. VIJAYA KUMARI, D/O.KOCHRAPPAN 4. AMBILI, D/O.KOCHRAPPAN 5. SUNANDA, D/O.KOCHRAPPAN ALL ARE RESIDING AT 474, MAMPULLY HOUSE, ARIMPUR, MANAKODY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K. SHANMUGHAN, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.XXXII/423, KAPPACHI MADOM KUTTANKULANGARA, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR. 2. T.A.SIVADEVAN, S/O.APPU, RESIDING AT THERUVATH HOUSE, CHENGAPRAYI VILLAGE KOLAPRAM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH: THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.811 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimants are the appellants. They are siblings (all elder) of a deceased person who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 3/11/2003 and succumbed to those injuries. They claimed a total amount of `5,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of an amount of `2,81,500/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph-10 of the impugned award which we extract below: 1. Expense for transportation - `1,000/- 2. Damages to clothing - `500/- 3. Expense for funeral - `5,000/- 4. Compensation for pain and suffering - `15,000/- 5. Compensation for loss of love and affection - `10,000/- 6. Compensation for loss of dependency - `2,40,000/- (2000 x 12 x 2/3 x15) M.A.C.A. No.811 of 2008 -: 2 :- 7. Compensation for loss of estate - `10,000/- -------------- Total - `2,81,500/- ====== 2. The insurance company has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The challenge is raised against the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. The amount of `2,81,500/- awarded is not fair, just or reasonable, contends counsel. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is not justified. An amount of `2,40,000/- (2000 x 12 x 2/3 x 15) has been awarded as compensation for loss of dependency. The learned counsel contends that accepting `2,000/- as monthly income is most inadequate. The deceased is claimed to be a Pappadam maker and seller and in any view of the matter his monthly income should not have been reckoned below `3,000/-, contends counsel. The learned counsel points out the decisions in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3218) and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar (2008 ACJ 1488) to impress upon M.A.C.A. No.811 of 2008 -: 3 :- the court that even in respect of a non-earning home maker or an unskilled manual worker, `3,000/- can safely be accepted as the monthly income. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company, on the contrary, contends that the total amount of compensation awarded is, in any view of the matter, absolutely reasonable. In fact, the amount awarded is excessive, contends counsel. The learned counsel, first of all, submits that all the claimants are adult married siblings of the deceased. They are elder to him. It would be idle to accept that the appellants depend on the deceased. Even assuming that he may have been making some contribution to his elder married siblings, it would be irrational and unrealistic to assume that there would have been monthly remittances on a regular scale from the income of the deceased to any of the claimants. The learned counsel for the insurance company contends that if at all, the claimants would have been entitled only for compensation for loss of estate if the deceased were to die before he got married. The learned counsel for the insurance company further points out that even if the parents were living, the unmarried bachelor son could be held to contribute only one half of his income and one half will have to be set apart for his personal expenses as per the dictum in Sarla M.A.C.A. No.811 of 2008 -: 4 :- Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the instant case the deceased was an unmarried younger brother of the claimants. When he gets married, it is idle to expect that the appellants would have received even 50% of his monthly income. 5. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. Even if `3,000/- is reckoned as the monthly income and 15 is accepted as the multiplier, it will have to be realistically taken note of that all the claimants together would not have been entitled to claim anything more than 40% of the income of the deceased as contribution to them. Even then the quantum of compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency would be less than the amount of `2,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. We are not persuaded, in these circumstances, to agree that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency warrants interference by invocation of the appellate jurisdiction vested in us under Sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The total amount of compensation of `2,81,500/- is absolutely fair, reasonable and just. There is no merit in the challenge raised. 6. Proportionate cost has been awarded by the Tribunal. We clarify that the proportionate cost shall be worked out as held M.A.C.A. No.811 of 2008 -: 5 :- in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). 7. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the rider that the proportionate cost awarded shall be ascertained as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/ M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge