IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1473 of 2011(E) ----------------------- OPMV.965/2009 of PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. GEETHA DEVI.V.V AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.VENUGOPALAN.K,EDASSERY PARAMBU,KOLATH HOUSE, PO ARTS COLLEGE,CALICUT-18(WIFE OF THE DECEASED). 2. SHEENA.V.V,AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.LATE VENUGOPALAN,K.KELLATH HOUSE, PO ARTS COLLEGE CALICUT-18(DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED). 3. ANEESH.V.V,AGED 18, S/O.LATE VENUG0PALAN.K,KELLATH HOUSE, PO ARTS COLLEGE CALICUT-18(SON OF THE DECEASED). BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN.S,S/O.SUBHARAJA,AGED NOT KNOWN,73,SUNDARI RAJA STREET,RAJAPALAYAM (DT) VIRUDANAGAR,TAMIL NADU 626 117. (R.C.OWNER OF THE LORRY NO.TN 67 M 6177). 2. C.RAJENDRAN,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAIAH.TRMS LORRY OFFICE 85 4 TENKASHI ROAD,RAJAPALAYAM(DRIVER OF LORRY NO.67 M 6177 DL. NO.R/TN/672/001725/2006). 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., TENKASHI ROAD,RAJAPALAYAM,TAMIL NADU(POLICY NO. 72063/31/07/01/00002230)(VALIDITY BETWEEN 15/2/08 AND 14/2/2009) ADV. P.K.SANTHAMM FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1473 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are the wife and 2 major children of the deceased, one Venugopalan, aged 52 years, who was allegedly employed as a salesman in a Pharmaceutical company. He claimed that his monthly income was Rs.5,500/-. He suffered injuries in a motor accident on 30.10.2008. He succumbed to his injuries on 16.11.2008 while undergoing treatment. Against a total claim of Rs.12 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.5,39,369/- as compensation as per the details given in para.12 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Transport Rs. 1,500.00 2 Damage to clothing Rs. 500.00 3 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000.00 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000.00 5 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 6 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000.00 M.A.C.A No1473/11 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 7 Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000.00 8 Loss of dependency Rs. 5,000.00 9 Loss of dependency(2500X12X11X2/3) Rs.2,20,000.00 10 Medical expenses Rs.2,79,369.00 Total Rs.5,39,369/- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company, which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation payable. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants first of all contends that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering (Rs.10,000/-) is grossly inadequate. The deceased had suffered fatal injuries. He was an inpatient from 30.10.2008 to 16.11.2008. A higher amount of compensation is liable to be awarded, it is contended. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under the head of pain and suffering. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the amount of compensation awarded under the heads of funeral expenses (Rs.3,000/-), loss of love and affection M.A.C.A No1473/11 3 (Rs.10,000/-) and loss of consortium (Rs.5,000/-) are painfully low. We agree that the amounts awarded under these heads deserve enhancement. We direct payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in reckoning only Rs.2,500/-as the monthly income. A salary certificate was produced to suggest that the monthly income was Rs.5,500/-. But the same has not been proved satisfactorily. Even in the absence of any better evidence, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.3,500/- can safely be assumed to be the monthly income for the purpose of ascertainment of the compensation for loss of dependency. 11 has rightly been reckoned as the multiplier and 1/3 has been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. These are in tandem with the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amounts M.A.C.A No1473/11 4 already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000.00 (15,000 minus 10,000/-) ii) Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000.00 (5,000 minus 3,000) iii) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 5,000.00 (15,000 minus 10,000) iv) Loss of consortium : Rs. 15,000.00 (20,000 minus 5,000) v) Loss of dependency : Rs. 88,000.00 (3,500X12X2/3X11 = 3,08,000 minus 2,20,000) ---------------------- Total : Rs.1,15,000.00 ========= 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that only an amount of Rs.1,500/- has been awarded as cost. The learned counsel argues and we agree that proportionate cost for the entire amount of compensation in the proceedings before the Tribunal is liable to be awarded as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]. 7. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand only) in M.A.C.A No1473/11 5 addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified in the impugned award. But we make it clear that no interest on the enhanced amount of compensation will be payable for the period of delay in filing this appeal, ie. 434 days; d) Proportionate cost in the the proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation shall be payable to the appellants as held in Jeena (supra); e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) rtr/