IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 534 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.223/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. PATHAYAKANDI BIYYAKUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. LATE MOHAMMED. 2. PATHAYAKKANDI SAIDU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED, VALIYARAKKAL HOUSE, PULTHOOPADAM, AYIKKARAPPADI P.O., PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN. RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------- M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI - 676 121. ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR RRESPONDENT THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 534 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appeal is admitted and we are disposing of the same at the admission stage itself. 2. The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 223 of 2001, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant, one Mohammed, died in a motor accident, which took place on 18.6.2000, as a result of the negligent driving by the first respondent. The complaint is only regarding the inadequacy of the compensation granted. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is evidence before the Tribunal in the form of oral M.A.C.A.No. 534 of 2006 2 testimony of the first appellant regarding the income of the deceased being Rs.3,000/- p.m. He would submit that, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in reckoning the income of the deceased at Rs.1,250/- p.m. In the nature of the employment, the first appellant could not have given any other evidence. The deceased was 45 years of age at the time of the accident. The counsel further points out that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.7,500/-, is inadequate. He further submits that no amount whatsoever has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. 5. After having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation. We notice that no amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. We feel that the appellants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards that count. We further notice that the deceased was working as coolie. This is not a case where there is no evidence in support of the contention that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. In the nature of the employment, as rightly pointed out by the learned M.A.C.A.No. 534 of 2006 3 counsel for the appellants, the evidence that could be adduced was the oral evidence. But the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,250/- towards the income of the deceased. 6. The accident took place in the year 2000. In view of all the circumstances, we feel that the interests of justice would be met by reckoning the income of the petitioner at Rs.1,650/- (Rs.400/- more than what was granted by the Tribunal), which means that the appellants will be entitled for an amount of Rs.48,000/- as additional compensation towards loss of dependency. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that the Tribunal has erred in granting only 6% interest on the amount awarded. We feel that the said complaint is justified. Therefore, the entire amount of compensation, including what we are awarding, will bear interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 8. The appeal is allowed in part. The appellants will be entitled to Rs.53,000/- more with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of M.A.C.A.No. 534 of 2006 4 the petition till realisation from the respondent. It is further ordered that the amount already awarded will bear interest at 7.5%, instead of 6%, from the date of the petition till the date of payment. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm