IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1507 of 2011(A) ----------------------- OPMV.1884/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS : -------------- 1. RAJAMMA KRISHNAPPAN, W/O.LATE KRISHNAPPAN, KELLAMPALLI HOUSE, KODAMTHURUTHU, KUTHIYATHODE P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. RESHMA R.KRISHNA, D/O.LATE KRISHNAPPAN, OF DO. DO. 3. AMITHA.R.KRISHNA, D/O.LATE KRISHNAPPAN, OF DO. DO. APPELLANTS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENMTED BY THIER MOTHER, THE 1ST APPELLANT. BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. P.SHEENI, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, CHENGALATHUVELI, C.M.C.I, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SHAJI.C.S., S/O.GANGADHARAN, MOOSARICHIRA, VAYALAR, CHERTHALA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADVOCATE SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1507 of 2011-A ***************************** Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The claimants are the appellants. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of Krishnappan who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 30/10/2004 and succumbed to such injuries on 29/11/04. The claimants are the wife and two minor children of the deceased. It was claimed that the deceased was employed as a Salesman in a vegetable shop. He was aged 55 years. Against a total claim of `6,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of `2,25,000/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph-8 of the impugned award which we extract below: “Compensation for the pecuniary loss caused to the petitioners due to the death of Krishnappan (2000 x 12 x 2/3 x 11) - `1,76,000/- Compensation for loss of love and affection - `10,000/- Compensation for loss of consortium M.A.C.A No.1507/11 2 to the first petitioner - `10,000/- Compensation for pain and suffering - `15,000/- Compensation for medical and other incidental expenses - `9,000/- Ambulance charge - `2,000/- Funeral expenses - `3,000/- ------------- Total - `2,25,000/- ====== 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurer has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. Challenge is raised only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded (total amount of Rs.2,25,000/-) by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and insufficient. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants first of all contends that the amount of compensation awarded under the head loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000) and loss of consortium (Rs.10,000) are grossly inadequate. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of love and M.A.C.A No.1507/11 3 affection and Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. 4. The main challenge raised against the impugned award is against the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal adopted multiplier correctly - 11. Only 1/3 was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. But the Tribunal reckoned only Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income. This is totally unrealistic, it is pointed out. It is true that better evidence about the monthly salary earned by the deceased was not produced before the Tribunal. But the Tribunal certainly must have taken note of the fact that the accident has taken place in October, 2004. Four persons including the deceased, his widow and 2 children were dependent on the income of the deceased to keep body and soul together. Reasonable inferences can be drawn even where the claimants do not adduce authentic, crisp and cogent evidence about the monthly income. We consider it absolutely reasonable to assume that the deceased must have been earning an income of Rs.3,250/- per mensem. The quantum of compensation under the head of loss of dependency therefore deserves to be enhanced. M.A.C.A No.1507/11 4 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Loss of love and affection : Rs.5,000.00 (15,000 minus 10,000/-) ii) Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000.00 (20,000 minus 10,000) iii) Loss of dependency : Rs.1,10,000.00 (3250X12X2/3X11 = 2,86,000 minus 1,76,000) --------------------- Total : Rs.1,25,000.00 ========= 6. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal has not been awarded as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011 (3) KLT 943]. We are satisfied that the appellants are entitled to proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal as held in Jeena (supra). 7. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount M.A.C.A No.1507/11 5 of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; 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) Proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation shall be payable to the appellants as held in Jeena (supra); e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) rtr/