IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1573 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.303/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS. ------------------------- 1. REMA.P., AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.C.KRISHNAN NAIR, KODDANADUKAM HOUSE, KODOM VILLAGE, KODOTH P.O., HOSDURG TALUK. 2. P.RENJITH, AGED 13 YEARS, S/O.C.KRISHNAN NAIR, KODDANADUKKAM HOUSE, KODOM VILLAGE, KODOTH P.O., HOSDURG TALUK. 3. P.REMITHA, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KODDANADUKKAM HOUSE, KODOM VILLAGE, KODOTH P.O., HOSDURG TALUK. APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNA RAI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.VITTAL RAI, CHANILA, PUNACH VILLAGE, VITTALA, BANTWAL TALUK. 2. PRAKASH SHENOY, D/O.DEVARAYA SHENOY, PRAGATHI ENTERPRISES KADRI, MANGLORE, R/AT NEAR SHRINITHI PETROL BUNK, KOKKARAKALLU, MULKI, MANGLORE. -2- 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, MANGLORE, RAM BHAVAN COMPLEX, KODIALBAIL, MANGLORE. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1573 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the wife aged 26 years and the minor children aged 9 years and 3 years of the deceased person who was aged 35 years at the time of his death. It was claimed that the deceased was a Gulf returnee and an employee in a finance establishment and also an agriculturist who owned a large extent of land. The accident took place on 26/6/01. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,24,700/- as per the details shown below: 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.1500/- x 12 x 2/3 x 17) - Rs.2,04,000/- M.A.C.A. No. 1573 of 2006 -: 2 :- 2. Transport to hospital - Rs.1,000/- 3. Damage to clothing - Rs.200/- 4. Pain and suffering - Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of consortium - Rs.5,000/- 6. Loss of love and affection - Rs.5,000/- 7. Funeral expenses - Rs.2,000/- 8. Loss of estate - Rs.2,500/- ------------------- Total - Rs.2,24,700/- ======== Interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the reason? Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants, first of all, contends that the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal is too inadequate. Only an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem has been reckoned as monthly earning of the deceased. He was supporting the family consisting of his wife and two children. He was a Gulf returnee. Though no documents have been produced to prove his income from his employment, it has brought to the notice of the Tribunal M.A.C.A. No. 1573 of 2006 -: 3 :- that he was having a fairly large extent of properties as indicated in Ext.A20. In any view of the matter, reckoning the income as Rs.1,500/- per mensem is unrealistic. Reasonable inferences should have been drawn. The Tribunal should have noted that even as early as in 1994 for a non-earning person also law permits the drawal of a presumption of prudence that his monthly income can be reckoned as Rs.1,250/-. In these circumstances, it is contended that the multiplicand adopted is not correct. 3. We find force in that contention. Sufficient data to exactly identify the multiplicand is, of course, not available. But we are satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that a reasonable inference of produce that the deceased must have been drawing at least an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem is absolutely reasonable. It follows that the appellants shall be entitled to a further amount of Rs.68,000/- under the head of dependency (i.e., Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 2/3 x 17 = Rs.2,72,000/- minus Rs.2,04,000/- = Rs.68,000/-). 4. It is further contended that considering the age of the dependents/appellants, compensation awarded for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is too meager and unrealistically low. Only an amount of Rs.5,000/- each has been M.A.C.A. No. 1573 of 2006 -: 4 :- awarded under these heads. We are satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that an amount of Rs.20,000/- each can safely be fixed as quantum of compensation payable to the claimants under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Consequently, the appellants are entitled a further amount of Rs.30,000/- in this head (2 x (20000 minus 5000)). 5. We are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under any of the other heads warrant interference or modification. 6. It follows from the above discussions that the appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs.98,000/- (Rs.68,000/- plus Rs.30,000/-) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Interest shall be payable on the entire amount as already directed by the Tribunal. 7. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR Nan/ (Judge) M.A.C.A. No. 1573 of 2006 -: 5 :-