IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1193 of 2009 C ---------------------------------------------- OPMV.2958/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. ANKAMMA,55 YEARS, W/O. ANAMALA MUTHALI (LATE) LAKSHAMVEEDU, PARAKKAL PARAMBU LAKSHAMVEEDU, PAZHAMBALAKKADU P.O. 2. SARASWATHY 35 YEARS, W/O. MARIYAPPAN, THEKKETHARA,PALLAM, CHATHANNUR-75. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. MUSTAFFA, W/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, MULLURKKARA, 2. P. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O. SASIKUAR, BAGYA NIVAS, VADAKKEKKARA, PAZHAYANNUR, TRICHUR. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., FAIZAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO. 1193 OF 2009 C ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellants are the widow and daughter of a 70 year old man who died as a result of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident. Their claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been partly allowed and an Award of Rs.1,21,000/= has been granted by the tribunal with 7 per cent interest. The only point raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in calculating the sum of Rs.80,000/= towards compensation for loss of dependency, the tribunal was in error for the reason that the multiplicand taken, namely the income is only Rs.2,000/= and what is more, 1/3rd is deducted. 2. We feel that there is no merit in the Appeal. Admittedly, the deceased was 70 years old. There is absolutely MACA.1193/09 C 2 no evidence for granting any higher income or taking higher income. The tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.2,000/= for a 70 year old man, no doubt, in the year 2003. In the absence of any material, we cannot say that either taking Rs.2,000/= per month in respect of a 70 year old man who was allegedly doing cooli work or deducting 1/3rd can be said to be unreasonable. The Appeal fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge