IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 320 of 2010(G) ---------------------- OPMV.1016/1999 of THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. SUKUMARAI AMMA,AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.LATE SOMASEKHARAN NAIR,PUNCHAMON MADOM, CHUNAKARA EAST,CHUNAKARA. 2. SOBHA,AGED 20 YEARS,D/O.THE LATE SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, --DO-- 3. SURYA,AGED 17 YEARS,(MINOR) D/O THE LATE SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, ---DO--- 4. SREEJITH,AGED 16 YEARS,(MINOR), S/O.THE LATE SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, ---DO---- 5. BHAVAN AMMA,AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, --DO-- BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. SAJI,S/O.RAMASWAMY,KATTUPARAMPIL, EDAKKUNNAM MURI,NOORANADU.PO. 2. E.P.NARENDRAN NAIR,NARENDRA BHAVAN, THATHAM-MUNNA,NOORANADU.PO. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH,KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD FOR R2 SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.320 of 2010-G ***************************** Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their husband/father/son who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 27.04.1999 and succumbed to those injuries on 06.05.1999 while undergoing treatment. Against a claim of Rs.9 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,29,050/- as per the details given below: i) Loss of dependency : Rs.2,80,000.00 (2500 X 12 X 2/3 X 14) ii) Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,500.00 iii) Extra nourishment : Rs. 1,000.00 iv) cloth : Rs. 500.00 v) Medical expenses : Rs. 550.00 vi) Bystander's expenses : Rs. 500.00 vii) Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000.00 viii) Pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000.00 ix) Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000.00 x) Love and affection : Rs. 16,000.00 ----------------------- Total : Rs.3,29,050.00 ========= M.A.C.A No.320 of 2010-G 2 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellants assails the quantum of compensation on the following specific grounds. 3. First of all it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is inadequate for two reasons. Firstly the monthly income was assumed by the Tribunal to be only Rs.2,500/-. This is incorrect. A certificate issued by the Village Officer was produced to show that the daily income of the deceased was Rs.250/-. He was a trader in hill produce. For such a person, the assumption made by the Tribunal that the monthly income assumed is only Rs.2,500/- is incorrect and unacceptable, contends the learned counsel. He was reckoned as a person belonging to the age group of 40 to 45 years and 14 was rightly taken by the Tribunal as the multiplier. The learned counsel then contends that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 of the monthly income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was a person, who was the head of a family consisting of himself, his wife, 3 minor children and two aged parents. At any rate, only ¼ of the amount should have been deducted towards the personal M.A.C.A No.320 of 2010-G 3 expenses of the deceased, it is contended. 4. The Tribunal did not choose to accept and act upon the certificate issued by the Village Officer about the income of deceased. We cannot find fault with the Tribunal for not having meekly swallowed that certificate as indicative of the actual income earned by the deceased. But however, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal must have taken note of the circumstance that in addition to himself, his nuclear family consisting of his wife and 3 minor children were totally depending on him. Of course, there is an assertion that both the parents of the deceased were also depending on him. The Tribunal ought to have taken note of the presumption of prudence permitted under clause 6 of the Second Schedule that even a non earning person can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem in 1994. Reliance is placed on the decision in Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218] , which suggests that in 2001 the Supreme Court held that even a non earning house wife can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that compensation payable for loss of dependency could safely have been calculated assuming M.A.C.A No.320 of 2010-G 4 Rs.3,000/- to be the income of the deceased on the date of his death in 1999 and deducting ¼ as the personal expenses of the deceased. 5. It is next contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium (Rs.10,000/-) is too inadequate. We agree. Considering the age of the deceased 42 years, we are satisfied that his spouse is certainly entitled to a higher amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. 6. No other specific grounds are raised to challenge the impugned award. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the following further amounts as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of dependency : Rs.98,000.00 [3000 X 12 X ¾ X 14= 3,78,000 minus 2,80,000] ii) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000.00 [20,000 minus 10,000] ----------------------- Total : Rs.1,08,000.00 ========= M.A.C.A No.320 of 2010-G 5 8. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,08,000/- (Rupees One lakh and eight thousand only) in addition to the amounts 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 directed by the Tribunal; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/