IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 606 of 2006 (A) ---------------------- OPMV.1952/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS: APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------- 1. BUSHARA, W/O.LATE MOHAMMUDALI, AGED 38 YEARS. 2. MUBEENA, D/O.LATE MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 17 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND BUSHARA. 3. MUNEEB, S/O.LATE MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 16 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND BUSHARA. 4. ABDUL RAHIMAN, FATHER OF LATE MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 68 YEARS. 5. NABEESAM MOTHER OF LATE MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 63 YEARS, (ALL THE APPELLANT ARE RESIDING AT KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA (PO), ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JEFFY THOMAS, VADAKKAL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOCHI-35. 3. K.K.RAJAN, KUNDOOR HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA. 4. JOSE, MANJALY HOUSE, KODISSERY, PARAKKADAVU. 5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOCHI-35. ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R2 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH FOR R3,R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.606 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the wife aged 30 years and 2 minor children aged 9 and 8 years and both parents of deceased person who were aged 60 years and 55 years on the date of his death. He succumbed to injuries suffered by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 14.03.1998. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.7 lakhs as compensation for the loss suffered by them. The accident is admitted. Finding on negligence is not challenged. The liability of the insurance company, ie. the 2nd respondent is not disputed. Before the Tribunal, there was no oral evidence. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the available inputs came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.3,18,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as per the details shown below: i) Funeral expenses and transport expenses : Rs.5,000/- ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/- M.A.C.A. No.606 of 2006 2 iii) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- iv) Loss of love and affection : Rs.10,000/- v) Loss of dependency : Rs.2,88,000/- [2250 X 2/3 X 12 X 16] .................... Total : Rs.3,18,000/- .................... 2. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal - monthly income at Rs.2,250/-, is grossly insufficient and painfully low. The Tribunal did not accept the salary certificate produced by the appellants, which shows that the deceased was employed with a private business concern as manager and he was getting an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. Even if that were not accepted, reasonable inferences must have been drawn by the Tribunal and at any event it is irrational to assume that the deceased who, the evidence clearly and unambiguously indicates, was travelling on his own scooter and is described to be a vegetable merchant and who had his wife aged 30 years and 2 minor children aged 9 and M.A.C.A. No.606 of 2006 3 8 years as also both parents looking upto him, would have been earning only an income of Rs.2,250/- per mensem. 3. Having rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, we find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Of course the Tribunal was at a disadvantage as there was want of cogent material to come to appropriate and specific conclusions. But all the same, even in the absence of better, more cogent and authentic evidence, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to throw its hands up. Reasonable inferences can be drawn. Inference for the probable income drawn by the Tribunals cannot be far removed from life. The accident took place on 14.03.98 and we are persuaded to agree even in the absence of better evidence that the conclusion would be safe and sound that the deceased in the given circumstances must have been earning at least an amount of Rs.2,750/- per mensem. Consequently the quantum of loss of dependency will have to be reworked on that basis. The appellants would consequently be entitled to a further amount of Rs.64,000/- [ie. 2750 X 2/3 X 16 X 12 minus 2,250 X 2/3 X 12 X 16]. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the deceased is shown to be aged 38 years. His wife is M.A.C.A. No.606 of 2006 4 shown to be aged 20 years and his children are shown to be aged 8 and 9 years. His parents are shown to be aged 60 and 55 years. In these circumstances the quantum of compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are also too low, it is contended. We are persuaded to agree that an amount of Rs.20,000/- under each of these heads would be absolutely reasonable. 5. It follows from the above discussions that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.84,000/- (Rupees Eighty four thousand only) [ie. 64000 + 10000 + 10000] more in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. Needles to say, interest shall be payable on the entire amount of compensation from the date of the petition as already directed by the Tribunal. 6. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-