IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 653 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1621/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENsT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. A.B.SAINUDEEN, AGED 57 YEARS, SON OF BAPPU. 2. SHEREEFA, AGED 43 YEARS, WIFE OF A.B.SAINUDEEN. 3. SAGEENA.N.S., AGED 22 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF A.B.SAINUDEEN. 4. SADIQ, AGED 20 YEARS, SON OF SAINUDEEN. ALL APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT ALUNKAL HOUSE, MANAPPATTIPARAMBU, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. T.R.GOPI, S/O.RAMAN, PARVATHI BHAVAN, IRITTI ROAD, MATTANUR P.O., THALASSERY. 2. DINESHAN AMBAN, S/O.KUNJIKANNAN, THUMBATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, MATTANUR P.O., THALASSERY. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COCHIN-682 016. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.653 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the parents and minor siblings of the deceased. They claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased in an accident which occurred on 31.12.2000. The deceased was allegedly a welder working on contract basis earning an income of Rs.4,500/- per mensem. He suffered injuries and died on the way to the hospital. Exts.A10 to A15 were marked. 2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.200,669/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 12 of the impugned award which we extract below: i. Transportation and funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- M.A.C.A. NO.653/2009 2 ii. Shock, pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000/- iii. Loss of dependency : Rs.1,70,669/- iv. Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/- v. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 5,000/- ----------------- Total : Rs.2,00,669/- ----------------- Under the head loss of dependency, an amount of Rs.1,70,669/- was awarded and the basis of the award of that amount is shown in the same paragraph which also we extract below: i. Contribution upto the age of 28 (Rs.16000x6) : Rs. 96,000/- ii. On marriage after deducting further one- third (Rs.10,667x7) : Rs. 74,669/- i.e.(2000x12x2/3x2/3x7) ---------------- Rs.1,70,669/- ---------------- 3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the grievance which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal had gone wrong in reckoning the M.A.C.A. NO.653/2009 3 monthly income at Rs.2,000/- only. This is unrealistic. The deceased had sufficient qualifications to work as a welder. He was having a Passport also. The probable increase in the emoluments were totally ignored by the Tribunal, contends counsel. The Tribunal had reckoned Rs.2,000/- only as multiplicand for the entire period of 13 years. The Tribunal had not acted fairly and justly, contends counsel. 4. We have rendered our anxious consideration to this contention. We are unable to agree. Except that he was a welder and having a Passport and was a competent worker as welder, no other evidence was made available. Therefore, the Tribunal was absolutely justified in reckoning 13 as the multiplier and Rs.2,000/- as the multiplicand. It has got to be taken note of that as a bachelor aged 22 years, it is doubtful whether the entire two-thirds would have been available as contribution to the parents. Reckoning only one-third of the amount for the personal expenses of the deceased does not, in the circumstances, appear to be absolutely justified. Be that as it may, we note that even after the date of probable marriage, the Tribunal has reckoned only one-third of the two- third of the monthly income as the possible contribution to the wife and nuclear family of the deceased. Reduction of only one-third of the two- third for the period after marriage does not also appear to be reasonable M.A.C.A. NO.653/2009 4 and rational. The alleged inadequacy in reckoning the multiplicand at Rs.2,000/- per mensem is found to be neutralised by the manner in which compensation for loss of dependency is calculated. We are not satisfied that the impugned award deserves modification. 5. This appeal is, in the circumstances, dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.653/2009 5 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.653/2009 JUDGMENT 26th March, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.653/2009 6