IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 261 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.967/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------- 1. ELIYAMMA, W/O. VARKI, 2. MERY, W/O. JOSE, 3. JOMOL, D/O. JOSE, 4. JOSHY, S/O. JOSE, 5. JOJY(MINOR), S/O. JOSE, (MINOR 5TH APPELLANT REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 2ND APPELLANT HEREIN.) 6. LILLY, W/O. JOSE, (MINOR 7TH APPELLANT REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 6TH APPELLANT HEREIN.) ALL ARE RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KONGANPARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. V.J.XAVIER, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT NENATTUSSERY HOUSE, P.O.MOOMALA, MULANGUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. P.S.SHAJU, S/O. SANKARANKUTTY, RESIDING AT PARAPURATH HOUSE, P.O.KIRALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. MACA : 261/07 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, IIIRD FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR. R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 261 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They claimed compensation in respect of the death of the deceased, a person aged about 40 years. It appears that the deceased was a coolie. Claimants 2 and 6 asserted that they were the wives of the deceased. Claimants 3 to 5 are children of the deceased through the second claimant, whereas claimant No.7 is the child of the deceased through the 6th claimant. First claimant is the mother of the deceased. A total amount of Rs.7 lakhs was claimed. Death occurred on the date of the accident itself. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a total amount of Rs.3,53,000/-, as per the details given below: 1. Expenses for transportation :Rs. 1,000/- 2. Damages to clothing :Rs. 1,000/- 3. Expenses for funeral :Rs. 5,000/- 4. Compensation for pain & suffering :Rs. 15,000/- 5. Compensation for loss of dependency :Rs.2,56,000/- (2,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 16) MACA:261/2007 -:2:- 6. Compensation for loss of estate :Rs. 20,000/- 7. Compensation for loss of consortium :Rs. 25,000/- 8. Compensation for loss of love and affection :Rs. 30,000/- ------------------- Total :Rs.3,53,000/- =========== 2. The said amount was directed to pay along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? Learned counsel for the appellants, called upon to specify the nature of the challenge against the impugned award only contends that the multiplicand adopted by the Tribunal to arrive at the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency is not justified. Only an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been reckoned as multiplicand. Considering the number of persons dependent on the deceased, the court must have reasonably reckoned a higher amount as multiplicand, it is submitted. Admittedly, the deceased was a coolie. No better evidence is placed before Court to prove his employment and earning. We note that the amounts awarded under the head of pain and suffering, loss of estate, compensation for loss of MACA:261/2007 -:3:- consortium and loss of love and affection are reasonably sufficient in the circumstances of the case. The burden of proof is cast on the claimant to place adequate data before court to persuade the court to pass appropriate orders in support of the claims. It is only the claimant who will be left to suffer if adequate and acceptable data is not placed before court. The court below in this case appears to have drawn the presumption of prudence that Rs.2,000/- can be reckoned as monthly income,even in the absence of better data. 4. Counsel advances the argument that the deceased had two wives and four children in addition to the aged mother depending on him. This circumstance may be taken into account while fixing the quantum of monthly income which he must have been earning to support his family. This is the only circumstance which has been pressed into service. At the outset we note that even though it is asserted that there were two wives, there is nothing to show that the deceased, a Christian, was having more than two wives. In law the so called second wife cannot be conceded the status of a wife. We are, in these circumstances, MACA:261/2007 -:4:- not persuaded to draw any inferences from the alleged existence of two wives and consequent additional responsibilities which the deceased is claimed to have. In the absence of any dispute inter-se between the claimants/appellants we are not delving deeper into the controversy about the status of the second wife. We accept that the monthly income of Rs.2,000/-, adopted by the Tribunal is absolutely reasonable. We are further satisfied that the total amount of compensation, i.e. Rs.3,53,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal is also absolutely fair, reasonable and just. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the award. 5. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE ttb MACA:261/2007 -:5:- MACA:261/2007 -:6:-