IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1093 of 2011() ------------------- OPMV.1517/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM ................ APPELLANTS / CLAIMANTS : ------------------------------------------ 1. SUDHA K.C., W/O. DECEASED CHANDRABABU, KOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAYAR P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM. 2. ASWIN BABU (MINOR), S/O. CHANDRABABU, OF -DO- -DO-, REP. BY MOTHER SUDHA K.K. OF -DO- 3. PRIYANKA BABU (MINOR), D/O. CHANDRABABU, OF -DO- -DO-, REP. BY MOTHER SUDHA K.K., OF -DO- 4. CHELLAPPAN, KOPPARAMBIL OF -DO- -DO- 5. RAMBHA CHELLAPPAN, W/O. CHELLAPPAN, OF -DO- -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI. ALEX N. MATHEW SRI. P. RAJEEV SRI. JAMES JOSE RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENT : ----------------------------------------------- 1. ANEEF, H.NO.333, NAGARCOIL KRISHNANCOIL BHAGOM, C.P.H. ROAD, VADASSERI VILLAGE, AGANSTHEESWARAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT - 629 701. 2. BINDU LEKHA, PERUMPRAVILA MELETHATTU, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 502. ...2/- MACA.No. 1093 of 2011() -2- 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM - 686 001. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1093 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT,J. Claimants are the appellants. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of the deceased who was the husband/father/son of the claimants. The accident took place on 7.9.2007. The deceased was a Cook in a toddy shop. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.5,29,200/- along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as per the details shown below: 1. Transport to hospital : Rs.2,000/- 2. Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/- 3. Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/- 4. Bystander expenses : Rs. 200/- 5. Medical expenses : Rs. 1,000/- 6. Pain and sufferings : Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of dependency : Rs.4,72,500/-(31500x15) 8. Loss of consortium : Rs.15,000/- 9. Loss of love and affection : Rs.15,000/- 10.Loss of estate : Rs. 5,000/- ------------- Total Rs.5,29,200/- ========= M.A.C.A No.1093 OF 2011 2 2. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal had not awarded adequate and reasonable amount under the head of loss of dependency. This is the only ground of challenge raised. There is no dispute that the multiplier adopted is incorrect. The Tribunal had followed the decision in Saralavarma(Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and reckoned 15 as the multiplier for the deceased who was aged between 35 and 40 years. The Tribunal reckoned Rs.3,500/- as the monthly income. According to the appellants the deceased was getting a much higher income than that. In support of this contention they have produced the certificate Ext.A9 issued by PW1 who claimed to be the employer of the deceased. That certificate shows that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- in addition to other allowances. PW1 was examined as a witness to prove Ext.A9. The Tribunal did not chose to place reliance on Ext.A9 and the oral evidence of PW1. The Tribunal had reasons to do the same. The oral evidence of PW1 was inconsistent with Ext.A9 certificate in that the number of the Toddy shop differed. The Tribunal even in these circumstances drew the presumption of M.A.C.A No.1093 OF 2011 3 prudence that in 2007, the date of accident the deceased must have earned an income of Rs.3,500/- per mensem. From that the Tribunal deducted only one fourth for the personal expenses of the deceased. It was thus that the amount of Rs.4,72,500/- was awarded as compensation under the head of loss of dependency (3500x12x3/4x15=Rs.4,72,500/-). 3. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal must have accepted the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A9 completely. We find no error or defect in the approach made by the Tribunal. We further note that the Tribunal had deducted only one fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased. In any view of the matter we are satisfied that the total amount of Rs.5,29,200/- awarded as compensation does not warrant interference invoking our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. This appeal is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns