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. 263 of 2007 ---------------------- OPMV.359/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANTS: APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/6TH RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- 1. SAVITHRI AMMA, W/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MOTHER OF THE DECEASED ANEESH, PUNJATH HOUSE, PERASANNUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DT. 2. SUNITHA, AGED 35 YEARS, SISTER IF THE DECEASED DO. DO. 3. RAMESH.P., AGED 33 YEARS, BROTHER OF THE DECEASED DO. DO. 4. SMITHA.P., AGED 30 YEARS, SISTER OF THE DECEASED, DO. DO. 5. AGILISH.P., AGED 26 YEARS, BROTHER OF THE DECEASED, DO. DO. 6. REJESH.P., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, PUNJATH HOUSE, PERASANNUR P.O., KUTTIPPURAM (VIA), MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SMT.BINITHA JAMES RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SANTHI PADMAKUMAR, POLICE QUARTERS, NO.122, R.V.PURAM, TRISSUR. 2. K.V.BIJU, S/O.VISWAMBARAN, KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, MANIMANGALAM, PEECHI VILLAGE, ASSARIKADU DESOM, TRISSUR. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PART HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, TRISSUR. 4. KAMAR, S/O.MOIDEEN, PONADIYIL HOUSE, ADAVANAD, THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DT. 5. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BR.OFFICE, SUBKA BUILDING, THAZHEPALAM, TIRUR. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERIED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 263 OF 2007 ============================ Dated this the 18th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The claimants are the appellants. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of Aneesh, who succumbed to injuries suffered in a road traffic accident on 30/3/2003. The deceased Aneesh is the son of the first claimant-appellant and brother of claimants 2 to 5. He was the driver of jeep involved in the accident carrying passengers. He succumbed to the injuries on the date of the accident. Against a total claim of Rs.4 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as per the details given below to the first appellant.: 1) Loss of dependency(3000x40/100x12x11): Rs.1,58,400/- 2)Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000/- 3)Transport to hospital : Rs. 3,000/- 4)Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/- MACA 263/2007 2 Total : Rs. 1,69,400/- Rounded off :Rs.1,70,000/- 2. The Insurance Company has been made entirely liable to satisfy the award. The Insurance company/ 3rd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the other respondents. Arguments have been heard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not fair, just and reasonable. Called upon to explain and be specific, learned counsel for the appellants first of all contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in reckoning Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was a young man aged 21 years. He was a driver by avocation. He was driving a passenger vehicle at the time of the accident. Relevant driving licence has been produced as Ext.A4. Even for a non earning home maker or a skilled manual worker, Rs.3000/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income going by the dictum in Lata Wadhwa & Others v. State of Bihar & others [A.I.R. 2001 S.C.3218] and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar[2008 A.C.J. 1488]. In the wake of the evidence that 21 MACA 263/2007 3 year old deceased was a driver driving a passenger vehicle at the relevant time, a higher monthly income ought to have been reckoned, contends counsel. We agree and we are of the opinion that Rs.3500/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal deducted 60% of the monthly income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Counsel for the appellants submits and we agree that going by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. D.T.C.[(2009)6 S.C.C.121], only 50% can be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 4. The mother of the deceased was aged above 50 years. She belongs to the group of persons of age 50-55 years. Going by the dictum in Sarla Verma(supra), 11 was correctly identified as the multiplier. We are satisfied that the deduction of personal expenses to the extent of 60% is not justified. 5. For pain and suffering endured by the deceased, only Rs.5,000/- was awarded. Counsel for the appellants submits and we agree that an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded under this head. No compensation has been awarded under the MACA 263/2007 4 head of loss of love and affection. We are satisfied that the first claimant-mother is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- under that head. For the loss of estate, no compensation has been awarded. We are satisfied that a conventional global amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded under that head also. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the first appellant (who alone is awarded compensation by the Tribunal) is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 92,600/- as per the details given below: 1)pain and suffering :Rs.5,000/- (10000 minus 5000) 2)Loss of love and affection :Rs.10,000/- (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) 3)Loss of estate :Rs. 5,000/- (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) 4)Loss of dependency :Rs.72,600/- (3500x12x50/100x11= 2,31,000/- minus 1,58400) Total :Rs. 92,600/- 7. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves to be enhanced. MACA 263/2007 5 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that only an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded as cost. The dictum in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K.[2011(3)K.H.C.728] has not been followed. It is prayed and we agree that proportionate cost is liable to be granted as held in Jeena(supra). 9. In the result, a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The first appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.92,600/- (rupees ninety two thousand six hundred only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. c)We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal. d)We further direct that cost before the Tribunal be paid as indicated in Jeena(supra). d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. true copy P.S.to Judge MACA 263/2007 6