IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 2675 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.683/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT: -------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, IIIRD FLOOR, UNIT BUILDING ANNEXE NO.72, MISSION ROAD, P.B. NO. 2701, BANGALORE,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING,JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION KOCHI 682 035. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.1: --------------- 1. KUNHUMACHA, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. KUNHAMMAD, PUTHANMARACHALIL HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM AND DESOM, POST PAYYOLI, KOYILANDY TALUK, PIN 673 523. 2. AZEES, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMMAD, PUTHANMARACHALIL HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM AND DESOM, POST PAYYOLI, KOYILANDY TALUK PIN 673 523. 3. NAFEESA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. KUNHAMMAD PUTHANMARACHALIL HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM AND DESOM, POST PAYYOLI, KOYILANDY TALUK PIN 673 523 . 4. V.K.MOHANAN, AGED NOT KKNOWN, S/O. KELAPPAN, P.O. PUTHUPPANAM, PIN 673 105, VIA VATAKARA. BY // THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.2675 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The Insurance Company/second respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded. Requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was obtained from the Tribunal. 2. The claimants are siblings - two sisters and one brother, of the deceased. They are shown to be aged 53 years, 49 years and 38 years respectively. The deceased is shown to be aged 45 years. There were no other claimants/dependents/regal representatives. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, awarded a total amount of Rs.1,23,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below: Loss of dependency : Rs.1,20,000/- : (2000x12x2/3x15x1/2) M.A.C.A. NO.2675/2008 2 Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000/- Expenses for transportation : Rs. 1,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.1,23,000/- ------------------ 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, the amount awarded is excessive and the same deserves to the reduced. The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of his death and an unmarried person. He had no other legal representatives. The claimants are admittedly the legal heirs of the deceased and they claim that they are dependents of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimants being adult siblings of the deceased, they cannot be reckoned to be dependents of the deceased. Hence, no amount other than the statutory minimum payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act need and can be paid by the appellant, contends counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2008(2) K.L.T. 873(SC) to substantiate his contention. 4. The claimants had asserted that they are the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased . No better evidence was made available to show that the claimants are not the only legal representatives of the M.A.C.A. NO.2675/2008 3 deceased or that they are the dependents of the deceased. But, we have satisfactory indication to show that the claimants are the only legal representatives of the deceased. We have also satisfactory materials indicating that the deceased was aged 45 years and had no other dependents and that the claimants were his only dependents. 5. The learned counsel relying on the dictum laid down in Manjuri Bera's Case contends that nothing more than the minimum payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act can and need be paid by the appellant. We are unable to agree. According to us, Manjuri Bera's Case does not lay down such a proposition at all. It only lays down the principle that if there is no loss of dependency, the legal representatives will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall not be less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. In this case, we find that the Tribunal reckoned Rs.24,000/- as the annual income of the deceased. One-third of the same was set apart towards personal expenses of the deceased. Out of the remaining two- thirds, which should have been normally awarded to the legal heirs, the Tribunal felt that considering the nature of relationship between the claimants and the deceased, only half of the same need be awarded to M.A.C.A. NO.2675/2008 4 them. It is thus that the Tribunal reached the figure of Rs.1,20,000/-. Further, since the deceased had no other legal heirs, the estate of the deceased would certainly have been inherited by the claimants. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree that the Tribunal committed any error warranting appellate interference and modification in fixing the quantum of compensation at Rs.1,23,000/-. It must be noted that no amount has been separately awarded under the head pain and suffering or loss of estate. We are satisfied that the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded as compensation for loss of dependency and the total amount of Rs.1,23,000/- awarded as compensation are absolutely fair, reasonable and just and no appellate interference is warranted. 7. This appeal is, in the circumstances, dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.2675/2008 5 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.2675/2008 JUDGMENT 25th February, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.2675/2008 6