Ligi and others v Subash and others and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 304 of 2006(A) ----------------------OPMV.843/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... ## APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL: ------------------------------------------------------- ## 1. LIGI, W/O. LATE BIJU, AGED 26 YEARS, KALAYIL HOUSE, 6TH MILE, CHAKKUPALLAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. ## 2. MARIAMMA, W/O. JOHN, KALAYIL HOUSE, 6TH MILE, CHAKKUPALLAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 3. ABIYA, D/O. LATE BIJU, AGED 8 YEARS, KALAYIL HOUSE, 6TH MILE, CHAKKUPALLAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUBASH, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANKAVALA BHAGOM, CHAKKUPALLAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. T.N. SANTHOSH KUMAR, THAZHATHETHAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPARIYARAM, THODUPUZHA. (The name of second respondent is corrected as “T.N.Suresh Kumar” vide order dated 24/9/2009 in I.A.No.2184/09) 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R2 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: **R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** M.A.C.A No.304 of 2006 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of January 2010 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Basant,J** Claimants are the appellants. They are the legal heirs/dependents of the deceased. 21 year old widow, a minor child aged 3 years and an aged mother are the claimants. The deceased had suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 21/10/2000 and succumbed to the injuries on the same date. The deceased was aged 26 years. He claimed to be employed as a manager in a private establishment. A total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed. The tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- as per the details given below: ||Rs.| |---|---| |Loss of dependency|2,16,000/-| |(Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 2/3 x 18)|| |Loss of consortium|10,000/-| |Loss of Love and Affection|10,000/-| |Pain and suffering|5,000/-| M.A.C.A No.304/06 2 Transportation 2,000/Funeral expenses 2,000/------------- **Total 2,45,000/======** 2. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is their grievance? Called upon to explain the nature of the grievance of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds: 3. First of all it is contended that the tribunal had omitted to award interest on the amount of compensation. We note that it is an obvious inadvertent omission. Interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of the claim to the date of the payment can safely be awarded. 4. The learned counsel next contends that no amounts have been awarded under the head of loss of estate. Relying on **Sarla Verma v. D.T.C [(2009)6 SCC 121],** the learned counsel contends that compensation must have been awarded under the head loss of estate taking into account particularly the fact that the deceased was a young person aged about 26 years. We are satisfied that in the absence of any better input, conventional amount of Rs.10,000/- can safely be awarded under the head of loss of estate. 3 M.A.C.A No.304/06 5. The main dispute is about the compensation for loss of dependency. It is claimed that the deceased was Manager of a private establishment. No material whatsoever is brought to our notice in support of this assertion. The learned counsel for the insurance company fairly submits that the investigation has revealed that he was a Salesman of the said establishment and not the Manager. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that even accepting for that, the amount of Rs.1,500/assumed as the monthly income of the deceased aged 26 years is totally inadequate and perversely and painfully low. 6. We find merit in that contention. He appears to have secured a stable employment with a private employer. He was aged only 26 years and the possibility of improvement in prospects cannot be ignored at all. The second schedule to the M.V.Act even in 1994 permits a presumption of prudence when the claim is under Section 163A of the M.V.Act that even a nonearning person can be assumed to be earning an income of Rs.1,250/- p.m. Six years having passed after that presumption has been incorporated in the statute book in 1994 when the deceased met with the accident. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that a minimum indisputable amount of Rs.2,250/- M.A.C.A No.304/06 4 can be reckoned as the monthly income. In coming to this conclusion, we note, in addition to the undisputed fact that he was a Salesman under a private employer that he was the supporter of a family consisting of a wife and a minor child aged 3 years in addition to his aged mother. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that assumption that the multiplicand can be reckoned at Rs.2,250/- is absolutely reasonable. 7. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that, at any rate, the multiplier adopted by the court below at 18 is not justified and going by the dictum in **Sarla** (Supra) multiplier cannot be taken at any figure exceeding 17 as shown in column 4 of the schedule incorporated in paragraph 40 of **Sarla** (Supra). 8. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the details shown below: i) Loss of dependency - Rs.2,250/- x 12 x 2/3 x 17 i.e. Rs.3,06,000/- minus Rs.2,16,000/i.e. Rs.90,000/ii) Loss of estate - Rs.10,000/- **Total - Rs.1,00,000/-** M.A.C.A No.304/06 5 9. In the result, a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part. b) In addition to the amounts awarded by the tribunal, the appellants/claimants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as per the details shown above. c) It is further directed that interest shall be payable @ 7.5% p.a on the entire compensation amount from the date of the petition to the date of payment. d) All other directions of the tribunal are upheld. The tribunal shall issue fresh directions regarding deposit/release. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** ## **(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)** jsr M.A.C.A No.304/06 6 M.A.C.A No.304/06 7 **R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009