IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 876 of 2011() ---------------------------------- OP(MV)NO.1667/2007 of PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------- 1. ABDULLA,S/O.LATE MUHAMMED, AGED 48 YEARS. 2. MARIYAM,W/O ABDULLA,AGED 36 YEARS 3. AFANEEDA(MINOR),AGED 16 YEARS, D.O.B.20/11/1991,REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER ABDULLA (ALL ARE RESIDING AT VAYOLI HOUSE,MAVOOR POST, KALPALLY KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN KUM.D.MINI RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJEEVAN,S/O.KRISHNAN,AGE NOT KNOWN 13/1441,PATHIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE,VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. JANEESH.T,S/O.ASOKAN,AGED 28 YEARS, THAYYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI HOUSE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,WHITE LINES BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD,KOZHIKODE. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- C.M.Appln. No.1393 OF2011 & M.A.C.A No.876 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT,J. C.M.Appln. No.1393 OF2011: This petition is to condone the delay of 534 days in filing an appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straight away. It is not necessary in these circumstance to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondents. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A No.876 OF 2011: Claimants are the appellants. They claim compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their son/brother who succumbed to injuries suffered in a motor accident on 30.5.2007. He was a driver by profession. He was aged 19 years. Against the claim of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,47,500/- C.M.Appln. No.1393 OF2011 & M.A.C.A No.876 OF 2011 2 as compensation as per the details given below: 1. Transport to hospital : Rs. 1,500/- 2. Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/- 3. Funeral expense : Rs. 3,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection : Rs.10,000/- 5. Loss of estate : Rs. 7,500/- 6. Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000/- 7. Loss of dependency : Rs.3,20,000/-(2500x12x2/3x16) ----------------- Total Rs.3,47,500/- ========== 2. The challenge is only directed against the quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain the specific and precise point of challenge the learned counsel for the appellant assails the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. Deceased was a 19 year old driver. His monthly income was reckoned at Rs.2,500/-. It is argued that the monthly income reckoned is incorrect. 3. The Tribunal assumed that one third of earnings would go for the personal expenses of the deceased, a young bachelor and the entire remaining 2/3 would be available as contribution C.M.Appln. No.1393 OF2011 & M.A.C.A No.876 OF 2011 3 to the family consisting of parents and younger sister. 4. We are unable to agree that the amount of Rs.2,500/- reckoned as monthly income in the circumstance is incorrect. In the absence of better evidence the presumption of prudence does not appear to be incorrect. At any rate, we note that only 1/3 has been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It is well settled that in respect of a bachelor one half is to be reckoned as possible contribution to his parents. In any view of the matter even if Rs.3,000/- or Rs.3,250/- were reckoned as the monthly income on a proper reckoning of the personal expenses of the deceased, the amount of Rs.3,20,000/- presently awarded does appear to be absolutely reasonable and just. We do further note that the Tribunal has not taken differential multiplicand, taking into account the possible reduction in contribution to the parents after the young deceased would have married, it has been reckoned as the multiplier. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the amount of Rs.3,47,500/- awarded as compensation to the claimants is fair just and reasonable and the same does not at any rate warrant C.M.Appln. No.1393 OF2011 & M.A.C.A No.876 OF 2011 4 appellate interference. Challenge fails. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns