IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2228 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.1586/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYA NIRMALA, W/O.LATE DILEEP, AGED 39 YEARS, POOPPADIPARAMBU HOUSE NO.12/620, KOOVAPPADAM, NOW RESIDING AT 7/1201,AZHICKAL HOUSE CHULLICKAL. 2. DURGA, D/O. LATE DILEEP, AGED 6 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER VIJAYA NIRMALA, -DO- -DO- -DO-. 3. ALLEY KRISHNAN, W/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 66 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. NANDA GOPAL, S/O. NOT KNOWN, C/O. SREENIVASAN, SACHIDANANDA NIVAS, VELENGATHONDIPARAMBIL HOUSE NO.37/2270, NORTH PALATHURUTHY, OPPOSIT PVC COMPANY,KOCHI-17. 2. SREENIVASAN, S/O. SHANMUGHAN, SACHIDANANDA NIVAS, VELENGATHONDIPARAMBIL HOUSE NO.37/2270, NORTH PALATHURUTH, OPPOSITE TO PVC COMPANY, KOCHI-17. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CITY BRANCH OFFICE II, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD FOR R1,2 SRI.K.V.VINOD FOR R1,2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.2228 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the death of first appellant's husband who is the father of second appellant and son of the third appellant. The deceased while walking on the road with his wife and child was hit down by a goods autorickshaw which caused his death instantaneously. The MACT found the vehicle and it's insurer liable. However, award passed is challenged on the ground of inadequacy of compensation granted under various heads. We have heard counsel for the appellant and since there is no appearance for the Insurance Company even after service of notice, we proceed to decide the case on merits. 2. The contention raised by counsel for the appellants is that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.2,100/- per month is too low because he was stated to be employed as a driver in a taxi vehicle. In fact, salary certificate produced from a tour operator shows that he was 2 getting a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. Even though Rs.4,500/- may be an exaggerated figure, we feel, in fairness atleast Rs.3,000/- should be fixed as income of the deceased per month, whether he works as a driver or not because even a daily wage earner can earn minimum Rs.3,000/- per month. Applying the same multiplier (16), appellants will be entitled to compensation for loss of dependency at Rs.3,84,000/- (3000 x 12 - 1/3 (towards personal expenses) x 16) as against Rs.2,24,000/- granted by the MACT. We feel enhancement is called for, for the compensation awarded for loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium. We increase the compensation under these two heads by Rs.10,000/-. The additional compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- granted by us will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from date of application till date of payment. Appeal stands allowed to the extent stated above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms