IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1030 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.244/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. KOCHURANI BENNY, W/O.LATE BENNY JOSEPH, KALAPAURACKAL HOUSE, ANTHINADU P.O., PALA. 2. THOMAS, S/O.LATE BENNY JOSEPH, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, ANTHINADU P.O., PALA, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND & GURADIAN SMT.KOCHURANI BENNY(1ST APPELLANT). *3. JOSEPH, FATHER OF LATE BENNY JOSEPH, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, ANTHINADU P.O., PALA.( D I E D) - LR'S IMPLEADED: 4. THRESSIAMMA JOSEPH, MOTHER OF LATE BENNY JOSEPH, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, ANTHINADU P.O., PALA. *ADDL.A5 TO A10 IMPLEADED: A5. JACOB JOSEPH, S/O.LATE JOSEPH KOATHU KALAPPURACKAL, ANTHINAD PO, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. A6. JOSE JOSEPH, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, KOLATHU KALAPAURACKAL, KUNINJI PO, VAZHITHALA, THODUPUZHA. A7. SUSAMMA JOSE, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, PATTERIL HOUSE, POOZHIKOL PO, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. A8. PHILOMINA JOLLY, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, KAZHIKKACHALIL HOUSE, PUTHU PARIYARAM PO, CHITTOOR, THODUPUZHA. A9. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, KOLATHU KALAPURACKAL, ANTHINADU PO, PALA. A10. JETTY BABU, S/O. LATE JOSEPH, OTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, KADANADU PO, KADANADU, PALA. (*ADDL.A5 TO A10 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 3RD APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DTD. 31/10/2011 IN I.A.NO.2825/2005) BY ADVS. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SRI.ANTO THOMAS. Kss ..2/- ..2.... MACA NO.1030/2005 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI GEORGE, S/O.P.M.GEORGE, PALAMKUNNEL HOUSE, VENGALLOOR P.O. 2. D.SUBHASH, CHERADIYIL HOUSE, NAGAPPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.(KALLARAMOOLA) R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1030 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT R.BASANT,J. Claimants are appellants. They are the wife, minor son and parents of the deceased, a young man aged 33 years. He suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 6.11.1999. He succumbed to those injuries on the same date. Against a claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.3,15,500/- as compensation as per the detail shown below: 1. Funeral expenses :Rs. 2,000 2. Transportation expenses :Rs.1,000/- 3. Damage to clothing and articles :Rs.500/- 4. Pain and suffering :Rs.10,000/- 5. Loss of consortium :Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of love and affection :Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of dependency :Rs. 2,72,000/- (2000 X 12 X 17 X 2/3) Total :Rs.3,15,500/-. 2. The Insurance Company was made entirely liable under the impugned award. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants M.A.C.A No. 1030 of 2005 2 and the learned counsel for the Insurance company. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. During the pendency of the proceedings the third appellant has expired and additional appellants 4 to 9 have come on record as the legal heirs of the deceased third appellant. I.A.No.2825/2005 is allowed and the said impleadment is permitted. 4. Called upon to explain the challenge and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants contends first of all that the Tribunal had erred grossly in reckoning only Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income. The deceased was a sales representative with a private employer. Exhibit A4 salary certificate has been produced. That indicates the total monthly income of the deceased exceeded Rs.5,000/-. The first claimant (wife of the deceased) was examined as PW1. The Tribunal erred in not accepting the oral evidence of PW1 and Exhibit A4 salary certificate produced and proved through her. In these circumstances the counsel contends that Rs.5,000/- ought to have been accepted as the monthly income. 5. We are unable to fault the findings of the Tribunal for not have been swallowed the introverted oral evidence of PW1 M.A.C.A No. 1030 of 2005 3 and Exhibit A4. The accident had taken place on 6.11.1999. Reasonable inferences can of course be drawn. There is nothing to indicate the educational qualifications of the deceased. We note that to support the theory that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, Exhibit A 4 is the only piece of evidence in addition to the oral evidence of PW1. We can certainly take note of the circumstance that the deceased had the nuclear family consisting of himself, his wife and child depending wholly on the income of the deceased. It is said that his father and mother were also depending on him. But better evidence on that aspect is not forthcoming. At any rate, we are, satisfied taking the totality of circumstance into account, that Rs.3,000/- per mensom can safely be reckoned as the monthly income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company promptly points out that going by the dictum in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC 1211) only 16 should have been reckoned as multiplier in respect of the deceased, a person belonging to the age group of 30 to 35 years 17 was accepted by the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants then contends that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of M.A.C.A No. 1030 of 2005 4 transportation and funeral expenses Rs.3,000/- (Rs.2,000 + Rs.1,000) is grossly inadequate. We agree that a total amount of Rs.5,000/- deserves to be awarded under this head. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium (Rs.15,000/-) and compensation for loss of love and affection (Rs.15,000/-) are not adequate. We take note of the age and position in life of the spouses. We take note of the love, affection, patronage and support which the deceased would have offered to the claimants. We are satisfied that the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection also deserve to be enhanced. 8. Counsel argues that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of estate. We are satisfied that a conventional global amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded under that head. 9. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,34,000/- as shown below in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. 1. Transport and funeral expenses :Rs.2,000/- (Rs.5,000/- minus Rs.3,000/-) 2.Loss of consortium :Rs.10,000/- (Rs.25,000 minus Rs.15,000/-) M.A.C.A No. 1030 of 2005 5 3.Loss of love and affection :Rs.5,000/- (Rs.20,000 minus Rs.15000) 4. Loss of depedency :Rs.1, 12,000/- (3,000 X 12 X 16 X 2/3= Rs.3,84,000/- minus Rs.2,72,000/-) 5. Loss of estate :Rs.5,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.1,34,000/- ======== 10. In the result: 1. This appeal is allowed in part. 2. The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,34,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal 3. We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period specified in the impugned award. 4. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. sd/- R.BASANT (JUDGE) sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE) “Additional appellants 4 to 9” in paragraph 3 corrected as “additional appellants 5 to 10” suo motu. sd/- R.BASANT (JUDGE) sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE) //True Copy// PA to Judge rkc