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 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 1377 of 2011(C) ----------------------- OPMV.714/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT : 3RD RSPONDENT -------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALAPPUZHA REP.BY THE MANAGER, KOCHIR REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS : CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------- 1. SOMANATHAN @ SOMAN, AGED 48, CHUTTUVELIKKAKATHU, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006. 2. REMA SOMAN, W/O.SOMANATHAN, CHUTTUVELIKKAKATHU, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006. 3. BABY ALEXANDER, S/O.SEBASTIAN, CHAKOKUNNUTHARA VEEDU, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006. 4. SAJI JOSEPH, S/O.JOHN JOSEPH, PALLATHANAM HOUSE, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1377 of 2011-C ***************************** Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Insurance company is the appellant. Claimants are the parents of a young man, who suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries in a motor accident which took place on 15.02.2004. Against a total claim of Rs.9 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,40,250/- as compensation as per the details given in para.8 of the impugned award, which we extract below: i) Transport to hospital : Rs. 750.00 ii) Funeral expenses : Rs. 1,000.00 iii) Loss of estate : Rs. 2,500.00 iv) Loss of dependency (3,000X12X14X2/3) : Rs.3,36,000.00 ---------------------- Total : Rs.3,40,250.00 ========= 2. The insurance company claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award only on one specific ground. The learned counsel contends that while ascertaining M.A.C.A No.1377 of 2011-C 2 loss of dependency, the Tribunal deducted only 1/3 from the income of the deceased. The deceased was a bachelor and therefore following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], one half of the monthly earning must have been deducted towards personal expenses of a bachelor like the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant, in these circumstances, contends that the process of reasoning by which the loss of dependency was ascertained by the Tribunal runs counter to the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra) and hence the same needs interference. 3. We have no hesitation to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that deduction of personal expenses from the earnings of the deceased/bachelor/son of the claimants is not in tune with the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra). 4. But, we wanted the learned counsel to explain whether the final conclusion of the Tribunal can be faulted. The deceased was aged above 18 years. His income was reckoned at Rs.3,000/-. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Sales Executive earning a higher monthly income. Be that as it may, even reckoning the deceased as a person earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, his annual income must be Rs.36,000/- M.A.C.A No.1377 of 2011-C 3 and he being a person aged between 15 and 20 years, an amount of Rs.4,56,000/- (6,84,000X2/3) would have been payable as compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act – going by the table/chart given under clause 1 of the Second Schedule. What has been awarded is only Rs.3,40,250/-. In any view of the matter, in these circumstances, the final conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be faulted notwithstanding inappropriateness in the deduction of the personal expenses for the deceased, a bachelor. 5. As the amount awarded is under any circumstances below the amount that would be payable under Section 163A of the M.V Act, we are of the opinion that the challenge against the impugned award cannot succeed. We may hasten to observe that we do accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deduction of personal expenses has been made by the Tribunal without following the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra). That notwithstanding, we are satisfied that our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the M.V Act does not deserve to be invoked in the light of the dictum in National Insurance Company v. Muneer [2003(1) KLT 137] and Sreedevi V. KSRTC [2011 (3) KLT 716]. M.A.C.A No.1377 of 2011-C 4 6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/