IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1351 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.02.2011 IN OP (MV) NO. 1285/2006 ON THE FILES OF MACT, MANJERI -------------- APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. KUNHIPATHUMMA, 65 YEARS, W/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE) CHELAKKATT HOUSE, P.O.PULLIPARAMBU, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. P.C.HASSAN, 49 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE). 3. P.C.ABDUL AZEEZ,45 YEARS,S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE) 4. P.C.ABDUL JALEEL, 43 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE) 5. P.C.KHADEEJA, 41 YEARS S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE) 6. P.C.MUHAMMED ABDUL NAZAR, 37 YEARS S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE) 7. P.C.FOUSIYA, 35 YEARS D/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE) ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHELAKKATT HOUSE, PULLIPARAMBU PO, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD BRANCH OFFICE JASEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD MANJERI 676 121. 2. P.C.ABBAS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE) CHELAKKATT HOUSE, P.O.PULLIPARAMBU 673 634, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. P.C.MUHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI (LATE) CHELAKKATT HOUSE, P.O.PULLIPARAMBU 673 634, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R1 STANDING COUNSEL SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1351 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are the wife aged 60 years and children of a deceased person who is said to be aged 65 years on the date who suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 30.01.2006. He succumbed to his injuries on 31.01.2006. The deceased was a retired village man. He was allegedly earning income by engaging himself in agricultural operations. Against a total claim of Rs.2 lakhs the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.88,000/- as compensation as per the details given in the summary appended to the impugned award which we extract below. Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) 1 Loss of earnings -- -- 2 Partial loss of earning -- -- 3 Future treatment -- -- 4 Medical expenses 25,000/- -- 5 Bystander expenses -- -- 6 Damage to clothing 2,000/- - 2 MACA No. 1351/2011 Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) 7 Transportation 3,000/- -- 8 Extra nourishment -- -- 9 Pain and suffering -- -- 10 Loss of love and affection 15,000/- 10,000/- 11 Loss of consortium 50,000/- 10,000/- 12 Loss of estate 5,000/- 13 Loss of dependency/economic benefits 1,50,000/- 60,000/- (1000 x 12 x 15) 14 Loss of amenity and convenience -- -- 15 Loss of earning power -- -- 16 Any other heads 5,000/- 3,000/- Total 2,50,000/- Limited to 2,00,000/- 88,000/- 2. The insurance company has made entirely liable under the impugned award. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the tribunal erred in not awarding any amount under the head of pain and suffering. The deceased a person of advanced age had suffered fatal injuries. He had lived for a period of one day before he 3 MACA No. 1351/2011 succumbed to the injuries. We note that there has been an omission to award any amount of compensation under the head pain and sufferings. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded as compensation under this head. 5. Next it is contended that no amount of compensation has been awarded under the head of medical expenses, bystanders expenses, transportation expenses, damage to clothing etc. The deceased was inpatient for one day before he succumbed to his injuries. Taking note of the relevant circumstances we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded as composite compensation under the above heads. 6. Though the accident had taken place on 30.01.2006 only an amount of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded under the head of funeral expenses against a reasonable claim of Rs.5,000. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded as compensation under that head. 7. Finally it is contended that the tribunal erred in reckoning Rs.1,000/- alone as his monthly income. The deceased was a village man and he was getting pension. In addition, he was earning amounts by engaging himself in productive 4 MACA No. 1351/2011 activities. In any view of the matter an amount of Rs.1,000/- accepted by the tribunal is not adequate, contends the counsel. 8. Though it is stated that Rs.1,000/- will be reckoned as monthly income it actually Rs.1,500/- is reckoned as the income. Deducted 1/3 towards the personal expenses, Rs.1,000/- is reckoned as the contribution to the family. The tribunal did note that the deceased was in pensionable employment under the State and must have been earning pension in addition to whatever amounts he could earn by his engagement in agricultural activities. Taking note of all the relevant circumstances, we are persuaded to agree that Rs.2,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly income. '5' has rightly been reckoned as multiplier by tribunal. 1/3rd has to be deducted by the tribunal towards the expenses of the deceased. 9. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs. 37,000/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand only) as enhanced balance compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. a) Pain and sufferings : Rs. 10,000/- (no amount awarded by the tribunal) 5 MACA No. 1351/2011 b) Medical expenses including damage : Rs. 5,000/- to clothing, transportation etc. (no amount awarded by the tribunal) c) Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. 5,000 minus 3,000) d) Loss of dependency : Rs. 20,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 5= -------------------- 80,000 minus 60,000) Total Rs. 37,000/- ======== 10. We are not persuaded to interfere with the amounts awarded under any other heads. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the tribunal has not awarded any amount as cost. The tribunal has omitted to advert this aspect. We are satisfied that proportionate cost in the proceedings before the tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as ascertained under the dictum in Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu K. [2011 (3) KLT 943] is liable to be awarded. 12. In the result 6 MACA No. 1351/2011 a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 37,000/- (Rupees thirty seven 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 awarded to the appellants for the proceedings before the tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as calculated under the dictum in Jeena (supra) e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT JUDGE V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE dnc