IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 140 of 2011() ------------------ OP(MV).715/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR ................ APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SINDHU, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.LATE SUNIL, ELANJICKAMALIL HOUSE, ASAMANOOR P.O., ASAMANOOR VILLAGE, PUNNAYAM KARA. 2. PARVATHY.S, D/O.LATE SUNIL, AGED 14 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN IST APPELLANT. 3. GOWRI.S, D/O.LATE SUNIL, AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN IST APPELLANT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.RAMACHANDRAN (THACHETH) SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI SMT. M. SREELAKSHMI SRI.R.VISWANATH RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS & 5TH PETITIONER : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANIL SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, KANJIRATHUMGAL HOUSE, KOTHANALLOOR KARA, KOTHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHANALOOR P.O.-686 632, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. GEORGE VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, ENTHAGAT HOUSE, PERUMTHOTTI PO-685 515, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ...2/- MACA.No. 140 of 2011() -2- 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE II, JEWEL ARCADE, LAYAM ROAD, COCHIN-682 011. 4. SAROJINI AMMA, W/O.LATE NEELAKANDAN NAIR, ELANJICKAMALIL HOUSE, ASAMANNOOR P.O.-683 549, PUNNAYAM KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SUNIL KUMAR (IDUKKI) R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R. BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.182 of 2011 & MA.C.A.No.140 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 Order/Judgment Basant, J. C.M.Appl.No.182 of 2011 Heard both sides. This petition is to condone the delay of 684 days in filing the appeal. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A.No.140 of 2011 2. Claimants are the appellants. They are the wife, two minor children and the mother of a deceased person. His father who had joined as a claimant died during the pendency of the proceedings. He was a Welder by profession. The accident took place on 31.10.2003. The claimants by producing Ext.A7 and examining P.W.1 asserted that his daily income was Rs.365/- and monthly income was Rs.10,950/-. The Tribunal did not choose to accept and act upon the oral evidence of P.W.1 and Ext.A7 salary certificate. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that the monthly income can safely be estimated to be Rs.2500/-. C.M.Appl.182/11 & MACA 140/11 2 Accordingly, against a total claim of Rs.15 lakhs, the Tribunal proceeded to award an amount of Rs.3,68,890/- as per the details given below: 1. Loss of dependency(2500x12x2/3x16) -Rs.3,20,640/- 2. Transportation expenses -Rs.2,500/- 3. Damage to clothings -Rs.250/- 4. Pain and suffering -Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of love and affection -Rs.20,000/- 6. Loss of consortium -Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of estate -Rs.2,500/- 8. Funeral expenses -Rs.3,000/- ------------------- Total -Rs.3,68,890/- =========== 3. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal had gone absolutely wrong in fixing the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency at Rs.3,20,640/-. The deceased was a skilled worker - Welder. His salary certificate, Ext.A7, must have been accepted. Ext.A7 has been proved by the oral evidence of P.W.1. In any view of the matter, the assumption made by the Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased would only have been Rs.2500/- is grossly erroneous. The same warrants interference, C.M.Appl.182/11 & MACA 140/11 3 contends the counsel. 4. The Tribunal even after discarding the evidence of P.W.1 and Ext.A7 could have realistically reckon the possible income of the deceased, a Welder. In assuming Rs.2500/- only as the monthly income, the Tribunal has grossly ignored the realities of life. The wife, two minor children and both parents were depending on the deceased. All relevant inputs should have taken into account and appropriate and reasonable monthly income should have been fixed by the Tribunal, contends learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the insurance company, on the contrary, contends that the Tribunal could not be found fault for not accepting Ext.A7 and the oral evidence of P.W.1. 5. We are inclined to agree that the Tribunal did not act perversely in not choosing to accept and act upon the oral evidence of P.W.1 and Ext.A7. But we are definitely of the opinion that totality of the inputs including the date of the accident, the number of dependents, the situation in life of the claimants/dependents, the admitted nature of employment of the C.M.Appl.182/11 & MACA 140/11 4 deceased as a skilled welder etc. should certainly have persuaded the Tribunal to accept that the monthly income of the deceased would not have been below Rs.4500/-(i.e. Rs.150/- per day). Reckoning Rs.4500/- as the monthly salary, we are satisfied, would serve the interest of justice eminently. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that under the head of loss of dependency, the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,19,360/- as compensation as per the details shown below: Rs.4500 x 12 x 2/3 x 15 minus 3,20,640/- = Rs.2,19,360/- ========= We note that the Tribunal had reckoned 16 as the multiplier. But following the decision in Sarla Verma's case [(2009) 6 SCC 121], we choose to reckon only 15 as the proper multiplier. 7. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,19,360/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. c) All other directions of the Tribunal are C.M.Appl.182/11 & MACA 140/11 5 upheld. We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest at the rate and for the period directed by the Tribunal. R. BASANT, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd