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 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 2276 of 2010(D) ----------------------- OPMV.1654/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 -------------------------------- 1. AMBIKA KUMARI.K, W/O.DECEASED P.NANUKUTTAN PILLAI, PALAZHI, KARAKULAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANJANA.A.N, D/O.DECEASED P.NANUKUTTAN PILLAI, PALAZHI, KARAKULAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. AMRITHA.A.N, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, AMBIKA KUMARI, W/O.DECEASED P.NANUKUTTAN PILLAI, PALAZHI, KARAKULAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. N.SUDHAKARAN, MANAGING PARTNER, HOTEL JEEVAN HOUSE, KOVALAM, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPRAM, PIN-696527. 2. ANEESH.S, S/O.N.SUDHAKARAN, PANKAJAM HOUSE, BEACH ROAD, KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-696527. MACA.No. 2276 of 2010(D) - 2 - 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PIN-695 001. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 SRI.J.MARY HELP JOHN DAVID FOR R1 TO R2 SRI.C.SURESHCHANDRAKUMAR FOR R1 TO R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.2276 of 2010-D ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are the wife, 2 major children (daughters) and the mother of a person, who was aged 55 years on the date of the accident. He was a P.W.D Contractor. Against a claim of Rs.21 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,88,655/- as compensation. The total loss was assessed to be Rs.4,09,100/-. Out of that 5% was deducted as the share of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was accordingly that the amount payable was fixed at Rs.3,88,655/-. 2. The insurance company has been made liable to pay the entire award amount The insurance company has not preferred any appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. In fact, we called for Exts.A7 and A8 documents which were produced before the court below. M.A.C.A No.2276 of 2010-D 2 4. The real dispute raised before the Court is about the adequacy of the quantum of compensation paid under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.5,000 X 12 X 9 X 2/3) as compensation for loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is grossly inadequate. 5. We have indications to suggest that the deceased was an A class P.W.D Contractor. But we note that sufficient and adequate material indicating the monthly income of the deceased is not available. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that all necessary documents were handed over to the counsel who was appearing before the court below. But on account of some omission, the relevant documents had not been produced. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if one further opportunity were granted to the appellants, the appellants shall produce all necessary materials before the Tribunal. Such a further opportunity may be granted to the appellants, it is prayed. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. As M.A.C.A No.2276 of 2010-D 3 indicated earlier, there are sufficient inputs to come to a safe conclusion that the deceased was an A class P.W.D Contractor. But satisfactory material about his total monthly earnings is not available. It is accepted that he was an income tax payee for many years prior to his death. If that be so, it must certainly be possible for the appellant to produce authentic data to satisfy the court about the income of the deceased. 7. Having rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, we are of the opinion that on the available materials, it is not possible to take any authentic decision on the quantum of income of the deceased. 8. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that the appellants can be granted opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter. 9. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The impugned award is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of O.P(MV) No.1654 of 2003 afresh in accordance with law after giving all parties opportunity to adduce further evidence if any necessary; c) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on M.A.C.A No.2276 of 2010-D 4 01.11.2011. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a period of 4 months from that date (ie. 01.11.11). Compliance shall be reported to this Court. d) We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on merits. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/