IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 232 of 2006(F) ---------------------- OPMV.1231/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. JANAKIAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, RAJI BHAVAN, WARD NO.6, AMBALAPPUZHA PANCHAYATH, KAKKAZHAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT -DO- 3. RAJESWARI, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. REJIKUMAR, CHITTEDATHU HOUSE, PERISSERY P.O., CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. K.K.RAJAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.IV, CHENGAMANADU PANCHAYATH, DESOM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M/S. A.B.T. LTD., REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, ANNAMALAI BUS TRANSPORT LTD., 19/745, VITHUNI ROAD, PALAKKAD. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU. ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.232 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants/dependents/legal heirs are the appellants. They claimed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of their predecessor - husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3, in a motor accident which took place on 02.02.1998. The deceased was a driver in M/s.Relish Foods. He was aged 53 years. According to the claimants in the petition, his monthly salary was Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of a total amount of Rs.2,11,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum and cost as per details shown below: Loss of dependency : Rs.1,76,000/- (2000 X 2/3 X 12 X 11) Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000/- Love and affection : Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/- Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,000/- M.A.C.A No.232 of 2006 2 Loss of estate : Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000/- ...................... Total : Rs.2,11,000/- ...................... 2. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is their grievance? The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the monthly earnings of the deceased reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per mensem is grossly inadequate and painfully low. In any view of the matter, the Tribunal should have reckoned a higher amount as monthly income of the deceased. Though erroneously only an amount of Rs.3,000/- was shown as his monthly income, the appellants had made available before the Tribunal Ext.A6 salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased which shows that he was drawing a basic salary of Rs.2,000/-, D.A of Rs.500/-, T.A of Rs.1,500/- and thus a total of Rs.4,000/- per mensem. The Tribunal should have reckoned Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, contends the learned counsel. There is no dispute raised by either side about the multiplier employed or M.A.C.A No.232 of 2006 3 the deduction for personal expenses. We find the multiplier of 11 taken and the deduction of 1/3 for personal expenses to be absolutely justified and in tune with the dictum in Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. The contradictory statement in the claim petition and Ext.A6 must certainly arouse dissatisfaction. However, we are satisfied that realities of life cannot be ignored by a Tribunal. Even for an unskilled unemployed person, second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act introduced in 1994 permits a presumption of prudence that he must have been earning an income of Rs.1,250/-. 4 years had elapsed from 1994 when the death of the deceased took place in 1998. The deceased, it is very evident, was a permanent driver of M/s.Relish Foods. In support of this, the counsel points out the statements in the undisputed inquest report prepared by the police after his death. 3. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that it would be absolutely safe to reckon the irreducible minimum monthly income of the deceased at the relevant time as Rs.2,500/-. The quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency can accordingly be raised/enhanced on that basis. Consequently the appellants would be entitled to a further amount of Rs.44,000/- under this M.A.C.A No.232 of 2006 4 head [2,500 X 2/3 X 12 X 11 (ie.2,20,000/-) minus 2,000 X 2/3 X 12 X 11 (ie. Rs.1,76,000/-). 4. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that interest has been awarded at a painfully low rate of 6% per annum. Relying on the decision in Dharampal v. U.P.S.R.T.C[2008 (2) KLT 691], the counsel submits that at least 7.5% must have been granted as the rate of interest payable. We find force in that contention. The challenge on that ground is also upheld. 5. In the result: a) This M.A.C.Appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.44,000/- (Rupees Forty four thousand only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal; c) We further direct that interest shall be payable @ 7.5% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of petition to the date of payment; d) All other direction of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) M.A.C.A No.232 of 2006 5 rtr/- R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ C.M.Appl.No.359 of 2006 in M.A.C.A No.232 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January 2009 ORDER BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 608 days in filing a M.A.C.Appeal. Claimants are the legal heirs/dependents of the deceased. In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) M.A.C.A No.232 of 2006 6 rtr/-