IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 1256 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.701/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 3 & 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. E.CHANDRALEKHA, W/O.GIREESH, KOMATH HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAYAMPOIL, PATTIAM AMSOM, POOKODE DESOM, THALASSERY. 2. SRUTHI E., D/O.GIREESH (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS, REP. BY MOTHER, CHANDRALEKHA, KOMOTH HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAYAMPOIL, PATTIAM AMSOM, POOKODE DESOM, THALASSERY. 3. VISHNU E., S/O.GIREESH (MINOR), AGED 8 YEARS, REP. BY MOTHER, CHANDRALEKHA, KOMATH HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAYAMPOIL, PATTIAM AMSOM, POOKODE DESOM, THALASSERY. 4. THIRUVOTH KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAYAMPOIL. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3 ------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MADIKKERI BRANCH, COLLEGE ROAD, MADIKKERI. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1256 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT,J. Claimants are the appellants. They are, wife aged 30 years, two minor children aged 7 years and four months and parents aged 65 and 68 years respectively on the date of the petition who claimed a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of a motor accident which took place on 1.5.1997 in which the deceased suffered injuries and succumbed to such injuries. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,11,500/- as compensation as per the details given below: 1. Loss of dependency (16000x17) : Rs.2,72,000/- 2. Loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner : Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of estate : Rs. 5,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000/- 5. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 10,000/- 6. Transportation expense : Rs. 2,000/- 7. Funeral expense : Rs. 2,500/- ----------------------- Total Rs .3,11,500/- ========== M.A.C.A No.1256 OF 2006 2 2. The challenge is directed only against quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants challenges the impugned award on two specific planks. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency and loss of consortium are too low and painfully inadequate. 3. For loss of dependency, an amount of Rs.2,72,000/- is awarded accepting Rs. 2,000/- as the monthly income, 1/3 as the the personal expenses of the deceased and 17 is the multiplier. The learned counsel submits that the amount of Rs.2,000/- reckoned as multiplicand is absolutely unrealistic, considering the fact that the deceased undoubtedly was the driver of a passenger transport vehicle (bus). He was aged 35 years. A family of six persons including himself, his wife, two minor children and two parents were depending on him. A certificate was produced to show that his monthly income was Rs. 4,472/-. His Employer was examined as a witness to prove that the said certificate (Ext.A4) was issued by him. In spite of all this the Tribunal did not M.A.C.A No.1256 OF 2006 3 accept and act upon that certificate. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not dispute the fact that the appellant was the driver of a passenger bus. He met with the accident when he was driving such a vehicle. The learning counsel for the Insurance Company argues that no prudent person could have swallowed Ext.A4 and oral evidence of the maker of that document. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company further points out that at any rate 17 should not have been adopted as the multiplier and 16 should have been adopted as the multiplier. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The presumption of prudence about the probable income of a bus driver in the year 1997 has to be drawn by us. We do take note of Ext.A4 and the oral evidence tendered by PW2, the employer who issued that certificate. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that implicit reliance cannot safely be placed on all such evidence of employers or certificates issued by him. We do take note of the irrefutable circumstance that the nuclear family of the deceased, his wife and two minor children were depending on such income of the M.A.C.A No.1256 OF 2006 4 deceased to keep body and soul together- not to speak of the father and mother of the deceased. We can also safely take note of the presumption of prudence drawn by the legislature in Column 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act whereunder as early as in the year 1994, courts are permitted to consider that even a non earning person can be reckoned to have an income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. 'Guesstimation' is certainly required. We are satisfied that we can safely assume that the deceased must have been earning an income of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem. We are further satisfied that the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that 16 alone should have been reckoned as the multiplier considering the age of the deceased can also be accepted. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded for the loss of consortium, we must note that the first claimant was a woman aged about 30 years, the deceased husband being aged about 35 years. For loss consortium, we are satisfied that it could reasonably be assumed that an amount of Rs.20.000 can be awarded. 7. On the above discussions we come to the conclusion that M.A.C.A No.1256 OF 2006 5 the appellants are entitled to the following further amount as compensation as per the details shown below: 1. Loss of dependency : Rs.1,12,000/- (Rs.3,000/-x12x2/3x16 ie., Rs.3,84,000/- minus Rs.2,72,000/-) 2.Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- (Rs.20,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-) -------------------- Total Rs . 1,22,000/- ========= 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that interest have been awarded only at the rate of 6 % per annum after 31.12.2001. We are satisfied that it can safely be directed that the appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum throughout. 9. In the result; a. This appeal is allowed in part. b. the appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,22,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c. We direct that interest at the rate of 7.5 per annum shall be payable on the the entire amount of compensation from the date of the petition to the date of payment. M.A.C.A No.1256 OF 2006 6 d. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns