IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 976 of 2011 ---------------------- OPMV.1129/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SIJI, W/O. DECEASED THOMAS, AGED 25, KUREYEDAM HOUSE, KOOVAPADY, KOODALPADU. 2. NAVEEN, AGED 4 YEARS, W/O. DECEASED THOMAS, REPRESENTED BY MONTHER AND GUARDIAN SIJI -DO- 3. MARY NEHA, AGED 5 YEARS, D/O. DECEASED THOMAS, REPRESENTED BY MONTHER AND GUARDIAN SIJI -DO- 4. RAPHEL, F/O. DECEASED THOMAS, KUREYEDAM HOUSE, KOOVAPADY, KOODALPADU. 5. ELIA, M/O. DECEASED THOMAS, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.3 IN O.P(MV) 1129/2007 --------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, MULLAPALLY BUILDING, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR – 683 542. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.976 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. They claimed compensation in respect of the death of late Thomas, the husband/father/son of the claimants. Against a claim of Rs.6 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.4,69,500/- as compensation with interest. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of an amount of Rs.4,69,500/- as per the details given in the tabular column in para.12 of the impugned award. 2. For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to advert to the amounts awarded under the other heads. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant, on being requested to be specific, contends that the appellant wants to challenge the amount of Rs.4,32,000/- (3000 X ¾ X 12 X 16) awarded as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. On the other grounds, no serious arguments are advanced and we are satisfied that the amount awarded under the other heads are just and reasonable and do not call for any interference. M.A.C.A No.976 of 2011 2 3. Coming to the specific ground of challenge, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was claimed as loss of dependency. The Tribunal reckoned Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a Sub Contractor for B.S.N.L. His monthly income far exceeded Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellants was requested to peruse the relevant documents to drive home his contention that the deceased was a Sub Contractor under the B.S.N.L. No document produced supports that assertion. More over, we have come across a relevant entry in the inquest report which is submitted along with the charge sheet, which shows that the deceased was employed as a daily worker. Be that as it may, there is nothing to show that the appellant was a Sub Contractor under the B.S.N.L. Accident had taken place in March, 2007. Even in the absence of any better evidence, the Tribunal drew the presumption of prudence that the appellant must have been earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no reason to interfere with that prudent discretion exercised by the Tribunal invoking our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We further note that the Tribunal had chosen to reckon only M.A.C.A No.976 of 2011 3 ¼ of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Even if the Tribunal had reckoned 1/3, that would have been absolutely reasonable in the light of the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. At any rate, we do note that against a claim of compensation on the ground of Rs.4,50,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, an amount of Rs.4,32,000/- has already been awarded. 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 does warrant appellant interference. We are satisfied that the total amount of Rs.4,69,500/- awarded as compensation is just and reasonable and the same does not warrant appellate interference. 4. The challenge fails. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/