IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1649 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1988/1998 of IST ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. SHOBANA OLIVE PADIYATH, W/O.LATE ARCHILAL PADIYATH, AGED 59 YEARS, "RAJ VILLA", KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, COOL WELL COMPOUND, KOZHIKODE. 2. ASIK PADIYATH, S/O.LATE ARCHILAL PADIYATH, AGED 26 YEARS, "RAJ VILLA", KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, COOL WELL COMPOUND, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.KAMALA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.PARI, RAZEENA MANZIL, 33/2313, MARIKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.11, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 3. SONIA PADIYATH, W/O.SABU JACOB, P.B.NO.4273, ABUDABI, UAE. ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN FOR R.1 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1649 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The claimants are the widow and the minor child of the deceased, the child having attained majority during the pendency of the proceedings. They claimed compensation for loss suffered on account of the death of the deceased, a person aged about 60 years, in a motor accident. He succumbed to the injuries one day after the incident at the hospital. He was employed as a Floor Manager in the Varkeys Super Market and was allegedly earning an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensum. The claim was for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.91,000/- as compensation. Claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. Called upon to explain specifically the nature of the challenge against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants first of all contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in not accepting that the income of the deceased was Rs.2,000/- per mensum. The claim was that the deceased was getting an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensum. Certificate issued M.A.C.A.No.1649/07 2 by the employer was produced to show that the salary was Rs.2,000/- per mensum . For obscure reasons, it is seen that the said certificate has not been marked by the petitioners or the Tribunal. 3. That inadequacy, notwithstanding the learned counsel for the appellants contends that reasonable inference should have been drawn and a person like the deceased having a stable and settled employment as the Floor Manager in Varkeys Super Market, must safely have been assumed to earn an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensum. It is pointed out that as early as in 1994, the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act has enabled the Tribunal to presume that even a person, who was not employed, can be notionally assumed to draw an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensum. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that it will only be reasonable to assume that the deceased must have been drawing an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensum. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is absolutely justified and it follows that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.20,000/- i.e (Rs.2,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 5) minus (1,500 x 12 x 2/3 x 5). 4. It is next contended that the quantum of compensation awarded under the heads of loss of love and affection and loss of M.A.C.A.No.1649/07 3 consortium - Rs.5,000/- each is painful and perversely low. The deceased was aged 60 years. His wife, the 1st appellant was aged 50 years and the son, the 2nd appellant was aged 17 years at the time of the accident. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the quantum of compensation awarded under these two heads is not adequate and reasonable. We are satisfied that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- each under these heads. The appellants are therefore entitled for a further amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.40,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-) under these two heads. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that medical expenses awarded is not sufficient. The award shows that the vouchers produced covered only Rs.3,042/-. We are not hence satisfied that the amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded under that head deserves upward modification. 5. We are not persuaded to agree that the amounts awarded under the other heads are not fair and reasonable. The challenge against the quantification of the compensation under the other heads does not, in these circumstances, warrant interference. 6. The above discussion lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.No.1649/07 4 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that the interest awarded is not fair and that interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. In the result, a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part. b) The impugned award is modified and it is directed that a further amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in addition to the amounts already awarded shall be payable to the appellants with interest @ 7.5% per mensum from the date of the petition along with cost as awarded by the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.1649/07 5 M.A.C.A.No.1649/07 6 R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009