IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 90 of 2006(A) --------------------- OPMV.1205/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. K.M. MAKKAR, S/O. MOHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS (DIED). 2. SMT. TAJUNNEESA, W/O. MAKKAR, VAKKILPADI, CHUNADAKKAD, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR. 3. ABDUL HAKKIM, S/O. MAKKAR, VAKKILPADI, CHUNADAKKAD, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR. 4. SHEINA BEEGOM, D/O. MAKKAR, VAKKILPADI, CHUNADAKKAD, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR. 5. KAMARUNNEESA, W/O. SURFUDEEN, KUZHIYAKKAD, KALLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 6. SHERIEF, S/O. LATE MAKKAR, VAKKILPADI, CHUNADAKKAD, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR. 7. SUNSITHA BEEGOUM, W/O. HUSSAIN, SWATHI NAGAR, ALATHUR. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SMT.SHAIMA .U. SMT.RINCI ANTONY.T RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. DORAISWAMY, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, VACHAKKARAPPATTI, SOUTH STREET, DULUKKAMPATTI, KAMARAJ DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. (DRIVER OF BUS TN-67A/2229). 2. SRI.S.S. KANNAN RAJA, S/O.SUBBARAJA, 121 A, SATTUR MAIN ROAD, R.R. NAGAR, KAMARAJ DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, R.C.OWNER OF BUS TN-67A/2229). MACA.No. 90 of 2006(A) - 2 - 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVL.OFFICE, 74, RAILWAY FEEDER ROAD, VIRUDHUNAGAR, TAMILNADU. (INSURER OF BUS TN-67A/2229 POLICY NO.090900/31/21/418/1/7251/96 VALID FROM 19-03-97 TO 18-03-1998). ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.90 of 2006-A ***************************** Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. They claim compensation in respect of the death of the deceased, who is the son of claimants 1 and 2 and the brother of claimants 3 to 7. Claimant No.1 had expired during the pendency of the proceedings. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,35,900/- as compensation. 2. The claimants/appellants are allegedly aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on 3 specific grounds. First of all it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of love and affection is too meagre (Rs.5,000/-). It is next contended that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering (Rs.5,000/-) is also inadequate and perversely low. 3. Finally it is contended that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is too low [Rs.2,18,400/- (2,100 X 12 X 2/3 X 13)]. M.A.C.A No.90 of 2006-A 2 4. The deceased was a Computer Cable Fitter, employed at Bangalore, earning a monthly income of Rs.2,500/-, it is asserted. It is further asserted that in addition to this amount, he was getting an overtime allowance of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. No better evidence was made available in respect of the same. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that Rs.2,100/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income. We must alertly note that the accident in this case had taken place as early as on 22.05.1997. Ascertainment of the monthly income must be conditioned by the time/period at which the accident had taken place. We are unable to agree that the amount taken into reckoning by the Tribunal as monthly income is inadequate or insufficient as to warrant appellate interference by us. We do further note that the Tribunal had indulgently reduced the monthly income by 1/3 to arrive at the contribution to the parents/siblings. It is now well settled that in the case of bachelors, the family can legitimately expect only one half of their income as the contribution. The remaining one half will have to be applied to the personal expenses of the deceased bachelor. So reckoned, we find that the total amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency cannot in any way be M.A.C.A No.90 of 2006-A 3 faulted. Similarly the amounts awarded under the head of pain and suffering and loss of love and affection do not also persuade us to invoke our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The challenge in this appeal fails. 5. This Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/