IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1780 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1717/2009 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS -------------- 1. SATHI.V., W/O.LATE HARIKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS 2. SAI GOVIND (MINOR), AGED 11 YEARS DOB 23.05.1998, REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN SATHI.V. 3. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, S/O.SANKARAN PILLAI, AGED 86 YEARS. 4. GEETHAKUMARI, D/O.LATE JANAKI AMMA 5. ANILKUMAR, S/O. LATE JANAKI AMMA 6. VISHNU, S/O.LATE JAYASREE (GRANDSON OF THE DECEASED) 7. SREELASHKSHMI (MINOR), D/O.LATE JAYASREE, (GRAND DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HER GRANDFATHER VASUDEVAN PILLAI AMENDED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.4627/2010 DT.17.08.2010 ALL ARE RESIDING AT VALLARAMMAN HOUSE P.O. MANASSERY MUIKAM VIA, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. JAMAL MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED RESIDING AT 5/476, ARANJIKKAL, EDAVANNOR MALAPPURAM. 2. ALAVIKKUTTY, S/O.VEERANHAJI RESIDING AT KULANGARA THODI HOUSE, THAVAKKAL P.O, PANNIPPARA MALAPPURAM. MACA.No. 1780 of 2011 - 2 - 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COM.LTD, JASELA COMPLEX, BYPASS JN, NILAMBUR ROAD MANJERI. 4. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KUNNAMBALLI THRIKKALANGAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DIST. 5. SASIKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNDAKATTUPARAKKAL HOUSE, AMBALAPPOYIL, KAIPPINI ERUMAMUNDA. ADVOCATE SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1780 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are the wife, aged 36 years, minor son, aged 11 years and aged parents (86 and 70 years) of the deceased. The 4th respondent (one of the claimants) expired during the pendency of the proceedings and supplemental claimants were arrayed. Deceased was a 46 year old person. He suffered injuries in a motor accident on 06.04.2009 and succumbed to the injuries so suffered on 09.04.2009. It was claimed that he was engaged as a Computer Programmer. Nothing was produced to show that he was employed as a Computer Programmer or was earning an income of Rs.4,000/- per mensem as claimed in this appeal. In the appeal it is claimed that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-; whereas in the petition it is claimed that he was a Software Programmer, earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. 2. Against a total claim of Rs.8 lakhs, the Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.3,93,621/- as per the details which are given in para.13 of the impugned award, which we extract below: M.A.C.A No.1780/11 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Transport to Hospital Rs. 1,000.00 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 3 Treatment expenses Rs. 6,221.00 4 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000.00 5 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000.00 6 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 7 Bystander's expenses Rs. 400.00 8 Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000.00 9 Loss of dependency Rs.3,51,000.00 (3000X12X13X3/4) Total Rs.3,93,621.00 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company, who has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that no reasonable amount of compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and pain and suffering. Only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium. The deceased, we find, is a person, aged about 46 years. The claimant/wife is aged 36 years. We are M.A.C.A No.1780/11 3 satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium (Rs.10,000/-) deserves to be enhanced. Similarly we are satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000/-) also deserves to be enhanced. Even though the deceased had suffered fatal injuries and had survived for a period of about 3 days after the accident, only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering. We agree that the said amount also deserves to be enhanced. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for th appellants is that the monthly income of the deceased reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency is not correct. Rs.3,000/- has been accepted as the monthly income. In the total absence of any materials in support of the assertion regarding the employment and income of the deceased, the Tribunal felt that the presumption of prudence can be taken and assumed that the deceased must have been earning at least an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. In the total absence of any better indications, we cannot fault the decision of the Tribunal. 13 has been adopted as the multiplier and that is perfectly M.A.C.A No.1780/11 4 justified by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. Even though only the wife and the minor child appear to be directly and totally depending on the deceased, it is seen that the Tribunal had permitted deduction of ¼ alone towards the personal expenses of the deceased. In any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency deserves modification/interference. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000.00 (20,000 minus 10,000) ii) Loss of love and affection : Rs.10,000.00 (20,000 minus 10,000) iii) Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000.00 (lived from 06.04.09 to (15,000 minus 5,000) 09.04.09 after sustaining injuries) ------------------- Total : Rs.30,000.00 ======== 7. The learned counsel argues that only an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded as cost. The learned counsel prays M.A.C.A No.1780/11 5 and we agree that proportionate cost shall be paid in the proceedings before the Tribunal for the entire amount of compensation hereby awarded as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]. 8. 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.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal; d) We direct that proportionate cost be paid to the appellants for the proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena (supra); d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/