IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1666 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OPMV.539/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. ANOOKKARATHI LAKSHMI, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.KORAN (LATE), UMMINIYNAM, PATTUVAM P.O. PADIYOTTUCHAL, (VIA) PAYYANNUR , KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. ANNOOKKARAN KRIPESH AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KOKRAN (LATE), UMMINIYNAM, PATTUVAM P.O. PADIYOTTUCHAL, (VIA) PAYYANNUR , KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3: ---------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. TALIPARAMBU, PIN-670 101. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.2524 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No. 1666 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT R.BASANT,J. This petition to condone the delay of 322 days in filing the appeal. Heard. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A No. 1666 of 2011 Claimants are the mother aged 39 years and brother aged 21 years of the deceased person, who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 11.11.2003 and succumbed to those injuries on the same day. A total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was claimed as compensation. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- as compensation. 2. The Insurance Company has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no C.M.Appln.No.2524 of 2011& M.A.C.A No. 1666 of 2011 2 compensation has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. The learned counsel further points out that only an amount of Rs.2,500 has been reckoned as the monthly income of the deceased, who it was claimed to be of the age of 19 years and who as per the records produced was of the age of 17 years at the time of the accident. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that in any view of matter the amount of compensation awarded does not deserve or merit enhancement. It is true that no amount has been awarded under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of estate. But the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is far in excess of the amount that would be actually payable on a proper computation of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even assuming that the minor aged 17 years was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensom going by the principles in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC 1211) loss of dependency could not in any view of the matter exceed Rs.3,20,000/-. One half is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the bachelor deceased. Here only one third has been deducted. Only 15 can been reckoned as the C.M.Appln.No.2524 of 2011& M.A.C.A No. 1666 of 2011 3 multiplier. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant mother (35-40 years) 16 has been taken. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company even if Rs.3,000/- were taken as the monthly income, the compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency will be only Rs.2,70,000/- (3000 X 12 X ½ X 15 =Rs.2,70,000/-). An amount of Rs.3,20,000/- has already been granted. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company contends that as a matter of fact the appellants cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned award as an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- has been granted against a claim of Rs.3,50,000/- 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We agree that the course adopted by the Tribunal of not awarding amount under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of estate is not correct. We are certainly persuaded to agree that such inadequacy is nullified and neutralised by the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. In any view of the matter in these circumstances the award that directs payment of an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- against a claim of Rs.3,50,000 cannot be held to be not fair, just or reasonable. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded does not warrant interference. C.M.Appln.No.2524 of 2011& M.A.C.A No. 1666 of 2011 4 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that proportionate costs on the entire amount of the compensation awarded has not been granted as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (2011 (3) KLT 943). We agree that proportionate cost ought to have been awarded on the entire amount of compensation. 8. In the result: a. This appeal is allowed in part. b. The impugned award is upheld in all other aspects. c. But it is directed that proportionate cost on the entire amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (2011 (3) KLT 943). R.BASANT (JUDGE) K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE) rkc