IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 1095 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.494/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 122, CIVIL LINES, A.V.R. ROAD, DECAS, MADHYA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS OFFICE, VETTUKKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 TO 5, RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 4 AND 5: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.THANKAPPAN, S/O. KUNJHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, VAVATHIL HOUSE, NOOLP0UZHA P.O., S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT (FATHER OF THE DECEASED). 2. C.THANKAMMA, W/O. THANKAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED), RESIDING AT VAVATHIL (H), NOOLPUZHA P.O., S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. V.T.VINOD, S/O. THANKAPPAN, AGED 27 YEARS (BROTHER OF THE DECEASED), RESIDING AT VAVATHIL (H), NOOLPUZHA P.O., S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. V.T.MINI VINEETHA, D/O. THANKAPPAN, AGED 21 YEARS (SISTER OF THE DECEASED), RESIDING AT VAVATHIL (H), NOOLPUZHA P.O., S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. V.T.ASHA RANI, D/O. THANKAPPAN, AGED 19 YEARS (SISTER OF THE DECEASED), RESIDING AT VAVATHIL (H), NOOLPUZHA P.O., S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6. MOHAMMED RAHITH, S/O. MOHAMMED DOULATH, 233, INDRAGIRI COLONY, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH (OWNER OF THE TRUCK C11/8184). 7. NOORKHAN, S/O. SHOUKATH KHAN, LORRY DRIVER, ASHTA VILLAGE, SEHORE DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH, PIN-466116, D.L.NO. & BADGA NO. NOT KNOWN (DRIVER OF TRUCK C11/8184). 8. AKRAM KHAN, S/O. BABU KHAN, 16, KESARA CALI, SHAHJAHANA BAD, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH (OWNER OF CAR MID/7168). 9. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH, POLICY NO.152100/000/06005/31/96/00253, VALID FROM 20-05-95 TO 19-05-96(INSURER OF CAR MID/7168) ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R1 TO 5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No.1640 OF 2004 & M.A.C.A.No.1095 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 O R D E R/J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 103 days in filing an M.A.C.Appeal. Heard both sides. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A.NO.1095/04 2. The insurer is the appellant. The insurer assails the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. A total amount of Rs.3,37,500/- has been awarded as compensation. Claimants are the father aged 56 years, mother aged 50 years and unmarried siblings – brother aged 27 years and sisters aged 21 and 19 years. Deceased was an Engineer by qualification. He was aged 24 years at the time of the accident. He had gone to Madhyapradesh and had unfortunately met with an accident there. The accident took place on 6.7.1995. He died instantaneously. His body was brought back to his native place, that is, Calicut for funeral. MACA.NO.1095/04 -2- 3. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs awarded a total amount of Rs.3,37,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as per the details shown below: Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Damage to colthing Rs. 500/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Loss of dependency (3,000x12x13x2/3) Rs.3,12,000/- ------------------------ Total Rs.3,37,500/- ========= 4. The Insurance Company, who was the 3rd respondent before the court below assails the impugned award. The learned counsel contends that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. In particular, challenge is raised against the quantum of compensation awarded on the head of loss of dependency. It is contended that at any rate, the deceased being a bachelor, half of the earnings must have been deducted as personal expenses. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary contends that the total amount of Rs.3,37,500/- is in any view of the matter absolutely fair, reasonable and just. The MACA.NO.1095/04 -3- learned counsel does not dispute the fact that as per the dictum in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009 (6) SCC 121), half the amount can be deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased. But that is not the rule of the thumb to be followed indiscriminately in all cases. The learned counsel further submits that it must be realistically taken into consideration that the deceased was a qualified engineering graduate. He was aged 24 years. He had not yet acquired employment consistent with his qualification. In such circumstances, the multiplicand cannot be ascertained without realistically taking into account the possible future increase. Calculating the income on the basis of the temporary or initial ad hoc appointment secured by the deceased as an Instructor is unfair and incorrect. That input cannot by itself clinch the issue. The Tribunal was absolutely just in taking Rs.2,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 2/3) as the contribution to the parents of the deceased. The deceased was the educated son of the parents. The parents were depending upon him heavily for the support and education of the siblings. Realistically taking into account, an engineering graduate in 1995 would certainly have secured a stable employment sooner, if not later, which would have helped him to contribute an amount far in excess of MACA.NO.1095/04 -4- Rs.2000/- to his parents. The learned counsel further submits that even in the wake of the evidence that dead body had to be transported from Madhyapradesh to his native place for funeral. Only an amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the composite head of transport and funeral expenses. The learned counsel further points out that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of estate which the claimants are undoubtedly entitled to in the light of the decision in Sarla(Supra). In any view of the matter, the quantum of compensation awarded does not at all warrant interference, argues the learned counsel. 6. We find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. The initial income which a 24 year old young man – qualified engineer, draws from an ad hoc or temporary employment cannot be reckoned as conclusive. Prospects of future improvement must be taken into account and when so taken into account, we feel that it would be absolutely safe to reckon that the deceased would have earned an average income far exceeding Rs.4,000/-. Even assuming that he would have contributed only half the amount to his parents, we are satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency (i.e., Rs.4,000 x 12 x 13 x MACA.NO.1095/04 -5- 1/2=Rs.3,12,000/-) does not warrant interference. It is trite that a respondent can support the award passed and the final directions issued by the Tribunal on other grounds – by challenging the findings entered. 7. We are not in these circumstances persuaded to agree that the quantum of compensation awarded consequently by the Tribunal is in any way unjust or unreasonable as to persuade us to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that interest at the rate of 9% interest has been awarded. We must note that the accident took place long earlier in 1995. The award of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. also in the circumstances of the case, does not according to us warrant appellate interference. 9. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn