IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 1884 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.917/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., UDUMALPET, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANOJ. S., S/O.SREE RAMA PODUVAL (LATE) `ONKARAM' PERUVARAM, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MADHU MOHAN, S/O.SREE RAMA PODUVAL (LATE) `ONKARAM' PERUVARAM, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1884 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The 3rd respondent/insurer before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The deceased/1st claimant – a woman aged 62 years, had staked her claim for compensation for the injury suffered in a motor accident which occurred on 17/5/01. On account of the injury suffered, she had to be hospitalised and continued treatment as an inpatient until she breathed her last on 16/12/01. After the death of the deceased, additional claimants 2 and 3 – the legal heirs of the deceased, got themselves impleaded and continued to prosecute the claim for compensation. 2. The deceased was a woman aged 62 years. It is claimed that she was employed as a tuition teacher and was getting an income of Rs.4,000/- per mensem. No evidence was M.A.C.A. No.1884 of 2006 -: 2 :- adduced to prove the employment or income which the deceased was earning at the time of the accident. 3. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, proceeded to pass the impugned award holding that the claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to a total amount of Rs.4,76,350/- as compensation as per the details given below: “Transportation - Rs.1,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs.7,500/- Damage - Rs.250/- Treatment - Rs.2,02,600/- Funeral - Rs.2,000/- Pain & suffering - Rs.30,000/- Love & affection - Rs.5,000/- Loss of estate - Rs.2,28,000/- ------------------- Total - Rs.4,76,350/-” ======== 4. The appellant/insurer claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellants wants to raise against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant wants to assail the impugned order in so far as it relates to the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of estate. An amount of Rs.2,28,000/- has been M.A.C.A. No.1884 of 2006 -: 3 :- awarded as compensation; but there is absolutely no legal basis on which such an amount is awarded. No details are shown. It is not possible to ascertain and decipher the basis on which such an amount has been awarded. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was aged 62 years and going by the 2nd Schedule to the M.V. Act, only 5 could have been adopted as the multiplier. About the quantum of income which the deceased was earning, there was no evidence whatsoever and only the presumption of prudence under the 2nd Schedule to the M.V. Act alone could have been raised. The 2nd Schedule to the M.V. Act permits the drawal of presumption that even a non-earning person could be assumed to earn an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem from 1994. If that be so, at worst, the Tribunal could only have assumed that the deceased must have been earning an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. In fact four O.Ps. have been disposed of by a common judgment and in O.P.(MV)No.915/01 where the deceased – a woman, aged 52 years and on whose side Exts.A25 and A26 partnership deed/bank certificate were produced, the Tribunal had reckoned the income only at Rs.2,000/- per mensem. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the Tribunal could not have intended to assume that the monthly income of M.A.C.A. No.1884 of 2006 -: 4 :- the deceased exceeded Rs.2,000/-. 6. So reckoned, the claimants would have been entitled only for an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency/loss of estate (2000 x 12 x 2/3 x 5). In any view of the matter, the award of the amount of Rs.2,28,000/- under the head of loss of estate is totally unjustified, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. We are persuaded to agree that the amount of Rs.2,28,000/- appears to have been shown as the amount payable as compensation for loss of estate on account of an obvious mistake. Some mistakes appear to have crept into the award in respect of other claims which were also disposed of by the same common judgment. In any view of the matter, we are unable to accept the impugned award in so far as it directs payment of an amount of Rs.2,28,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency/loss of estate. Only an amount of Rs.80,000/- can be held to be payable as compensation on that score. This would mean that an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- has been awarded in excess by the Tribunal and the impugned award warrants interference to that extent. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and it is directed that the claimants shall be entitled only for an amount M.A.C.A. No.1884 of 2006 -: 5 :- of Rs.3,28,350/- (Rs.4,76,350/- minus Rs.1,48,000/-) as compensation. In all other respects, the impugned award is upheld. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No.1884 of 2006 -: 6 :-