IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1405 of 2006() ----------------------- OP(MV) NO.1588/01 OF THE MACT, MANJERI. APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. NAFEESA, AGED 33 YRS, W/O. CHONARI MOHAMMED (LATE), VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.PULIYAMPARAMBU, KONDOTTY (VIA), MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. BUSHARA, AGED 16 YRS, MINOR, REP. BY GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT DO, DO. 3. NASEEBA, AGED 14 YRS, (MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT.) 4. RAJAB ALI, AGED 12 YRS, (MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT.) DO. DO. 5. MOHAMMED SHAFEEQ, AGED 10 YRS, (MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT.) -DO- -DO- 6. MUFZIRA BHANU, AGED 7 YRS, (MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT.) -DO- -DO- 7. CHONARI MOIDU, AGED 65 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 8. IYYATHU, AGED 55 YRS, W/O. CHONARI MOIDU, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------ M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JASEELA COMPLEX, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1405 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimants are the widow, 5 children and the parents of the deceased, who succumbed to injuries suffered in a motor accident. An amount of Rs.5 lakhs was claimed as compensation. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed payment of Rs.2,87,500/- as compensation. The deceased was a Jeep driver by profession. He was aged 32 years at the time of his death. The wife, 5 children and 2 parents were allegedly depending on the income of the deceased on the date of his death. It was asserted that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. 2. The Tribunal awarded amounts under various heads. The appellants/claimants lament that adequate compensation M.A.C.A. No. 1405 of 2006 -: 2 :- has not been awarded to the appellants. Considering the totality of circumstances, it is evident that the amount awarded is not just and reasonable, contends the learned counsel for the appellants. 3. What are the specific grounds of challenge? The learned counsel for the appellants submits, first of all, that the monthly income reckoned at Rs.2,000/- is grossly inadequate. Realities of the situation were not taken into account. The wife and 5 children were solely depending on the deceased in addition to his 2 parents. He was a skilled driver. Even for an unemployed person, from 1994 it is permissible under the statute to assume that such a person must be earning a notional income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. Even in the absence of better evidence, the Tribunal must have accepted the assertions of the appellants that the deceased was drawing an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. We find merit in the contention raised. We are satisfied ,in the circumstances of the case, that an amount of Rs.2,500/- can safely be assumed to be the income of the deceased on the date of his death even in the absence of better evidence. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation paid for dependency will have to be raised by Rs.68,000/- [ie. Rs.2,500 x 12 x 2/3 x 17 = Rs.3,40,000 minus Rs.2,72,000 = M.A.C.A. No. 1405 of 2006 -: 3 :- Rs.68,000/-]. 4. It is then contended that no compensation has been awarded for loss of love and affection. Though an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded as compensation for loss of consortium, the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium is totally inadequate and insufficient considering the state of age and health of the spouses, contends the learned counsel for the appellants. We are satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that Rs.25,000/- each can safely be fixed as the quantum of compensation payable for the loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Under these heads, the appellants are consequently entitled to a further amount of Rs.45,000/- (i.e., Rs.25,000/- x 2 minus Rs.5,000/-). 5. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the interest is awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. This is perversely and painfully low. Interest must have been awarded at least at the rate of 7.5% per annum, urges the learned counsel for the appellants. We accept that submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled a further amount of Rs.1,13,000/- (Rs.68,000/- plus Rs.45,000/-) as shown above as compensation. M.A.C.A. No. 1405 of 2006 -: 4 :- They are entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition on the entire amount awarded. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT (Judge) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON (Judge) Nan/