High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeals allowed; enhanced compensation calculat...
MACA Nos. 776/2010, 1892/2010, 1699/2010 and 1670/2010 — Motor Accident Claims Appeals, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case / Petition Number:MACA 776/2010; MACA 1892/2010; MACA 1699/2010; MACA 1670/2010
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Vinod Chandran
- Judgment Date
- 2018-11-07
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeals are allowed. The court enhanced compensation for the claimants in light of the evidence and the guiding Supreme Court precedents. It adopted appropriate multipliers (15 for non-driver, 16 for driver) and granted filial consortium of Rs. 40,000 per child, recalculating losses of love, estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The enhanced amounts are to be shared proportionately among heirs (2:1:1) as directed, and the payable sum must be disbursed within two months from the certified copy of this judgment, with interest from the date of application and costs as awarded by the Tribunal. A 2019 correction order adjusting computation was noted. The matter remains subject to the Tribunal’s original framework for liability and costs.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals allowed; enhanced compensation calculated as per the judgment; enhanced amounts to be paid within two months with interest from date of application and costs as awarded by the Tribunal; proportional sharing among heirs (2:1:1).
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- LISSY METHOTH
- M.DAMODARAN
- M.DEVAYANI
- REEJA M. M.
- K.T.MINI
- GREESHMA
- K.T.GOPALAN
- RADHA K.T.
- P.NOORJAHAN
- FAIDYA GHAFOOR
- FASINA GHAFOOR
- P.ABOOBACKER SO MOHAMMED HAJI
- P.ASSIA WO ABOOBACKER
Respondents
- PONVALAPPAN S/O. SENGODA COUDER
- SIVANANDAN M. S/O. MARAPPAN
- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
- P.P. NAUSHIQUE PARTNER
- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
- LISSY, D/O. SUKUMARAN
- PONVALAPPAN S/O. SENGODA COUDER (DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER 24/10/2018)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. A.V.M. Salahudin
- • Adv. P.Y. Sheheera
- • Adv. R. Bind u (Sasthamangalum)
- • Adv. Prasanth M.P.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Adv. T.C. Sowmiavathy
- • Adv. Lal George
Case Synopsis & Summary
These are consolidated Motor Accident Claims Appeals challenging a common award under OP MV 700/2002 and related motorway claims for a road traffic accident on 06 August 2001 involving a lorry of M/s Koyenco Expellers Pvt. Ltd. The Kerala High Court, before Justice K. Vinod Chandran, heard MACA Nos. 776/2010 (appellants including Lissy and others), 1892/2010 (K.T. Mini, Greeshma, Gopalakrishnan and others), 1699/2010 (parents and others) and 1670/2010 (other heirs) on 07 November 2018. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to dependants; the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing income, lacked credible evidence of earnings, and that higher compensation was warranted per Supreme Court precedents. The court scrutinized Ext. A10 salary certificate showing Rs.12,500 monthly pay for the deceased and relied on the principles in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Ramachandrappa to recalculate losses. It granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000 per child and re-evaluated loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, applying multipliers of 15 (non-driver) and 16 (driver) with a 40% uplift for skilled employment where applicable. The court also directed proportional sharing of enhanced awards (2:1:1) among heirs and corrected computation in 2019. The judgment ends with the appeals being allowed and directions for payment within two months with interest and costs.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others (2 KLT 802) - multiplier method for compensation
- Pranay Sethi and Others v. National Insurance Co. (5 KHC 350) - future prospects and contingencies
- Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 236) - income for drivers
- Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 11 SCALE 247 - filial consortium and enhancement principles
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting Ext. A10 salary certificate showing a monthly income of Rs. 12,500 for the deceased and that the court should adopt this figure with appropriate adjustments. Relying on the Supreme Court precedents in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, they urged a proper multiplier based on age and occupation, and an uplift for future prospects where applicable. They pressed for filial consortium of Rs. 40,000 for each dependent child and for recalculation of losses (loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of dependency). They also urged proportional sharing among heirs (2:1:1) and to treat the driver’s income with a higher multiplier (16), arguing that the deceased were employed in a managerial/technical capacity.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s award should be maintained unless proven erroneous by credible income evidence. They argued that the salary evidence and the Tribunal’s findings should be given due weight and that the original award did not warrant extraordinary enhancement. They requested adherence to the established schedule of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and emphasized the need to avoid excessive increments beyond what evidence supports, urging the court to maintain a cautious approach to income estimation and multipliers.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others | 2018 (11) SCALE 247 | Positive | Used as binding precedent to grant filial consortium and enhanced compensation. |
| Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others | (2010) 2 KLT 802 | Positive | Used as binding precedent for multiplier methodology. |
| National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others | 2017 (5) KHC 350 | Positive | Guidelines for future prospects and contingencies in calculating compensation. |
| Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited | (2011) 13 SCC 236 | Positive | Justified higher monthly income for a driver in absence of definitive proof of earnings. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against MACA Nos. 776/2010, 1892/2010, 1699/2010 and 1670/2010 — Motor Accident Claims Appeals, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **MACA.No. 776 of 2010**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 700/2002 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE**
**APPELLANT/S:**
**LISSY METHOTH HOUSE, CHALIL ROAD,, NEAR MASS CORNER, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA**
|**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**|**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**|
|---|---|
|**1**|**PONVALAPPAN**|
||**7, RCC 260/.261, SG MUTT ROAD,, CHAMRAJPET,**|
||**BANGLORE.**|
||**RESPONDENT 1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT**|
||**THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED**|
||**13.03.2015 IN IA 920/2015 IN MACA 776/2010**|
|**2**|**SIVANANDAN.M SO. MARAPPAN**|
||**76 E, PARALI.P.O, NAMAKKAL,, TAMIL NADU - 637**|
||**001.**|
|**3**|**NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.**|
||**74 A, PARAMATTY ROAD, NAMAKKAL,, TAMIL NADU -**|
||**637 001.**|
|**4**|**P.P. NOUSHIQUE PARTNER**|
||**KOYENCO BAZAR, WEST HILL, CALICUT-5**|
|**5**|**NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.**|
||**THRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU,, KOZHIKODE**|
||**DISTRICT.**|
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
2
## **2[nd] page of MACA 776/2010**
- **6 M. DAMODARAN SO. KUTTAN 33/100, METHOTH HOUSE, CHALIL ROAD,, NEAR MASS CORNER, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE.**
- **7 M. DEVAYANI W/O. DAMODARAN, 33/100, METOTH HOUSE,, CHALIL ROAD, NEAR MASS CORNER,, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. (DIED)**
**8 (ADDL.) REEJA M.M. AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE DEVAYANI, 33/100, METHOTH (H), CHALIL ROAD, NEAR MASS CORNER, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. (DAUGHTER OF DECEASED 7TH RESPONDENT IS SUOMOTO IMPLEADED AS ADDL.8TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 31/10/18 IN MACA 776/10).**
**BY ADVS.**
**SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY SRI.P.JAYASANKAR SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC, NATIONAL INS.COMPANY LTD**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.1892/2010, MACA.1699/2010, MACA.1670/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
3
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
**MACA.No. 1892 of 2010**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 277/2002 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
- **1 K.T.MINI AGED 1 YEARS KELOTH TAZHE HOUSE,, P.O.MUCHUKUNNU, QUILANDY TALUK**
- **2 GREESHMA DO.GIREESH K.T. AGED 8 YEARS,, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN THE 1ST APPELLANT**
- **3 K.T.GOPALAN SO.CHEKUTTY AGED 70,, KELOTH THAZHE HOUSE,, P.O.MUCHUKUNNU,, QUILANDY TALUK**
- **4 RADHA K.T. W/O.K.T.GOPALAN,, KELOTH THAZHE HOUSE,P.O.MUCHUKUNNU,, QUILANDY TALUK**
**BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 PONVALAPPAN S/O.SENGODA COUDER,7,RCC,260-261,S.G.MATT ROAD,, CHAMRAJPET ROAD, BANGALURU-560001**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
4
- **2[nd] page of MACA 1892/2010**
- **2 SIVANANDAN M. S/O.MARAPPAN 76 E, PARALI P.O.,NAMAKKAL,, TAMIL NADU,637001**
- **3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO-LTD**
- **& 4 A,PARAMATTY ROAD,, NAMAKKAL,TAMIL NADU, 637001**
- **4 P.P.NAUSHIQUE PARTNER, KOYENCO BAZAR,, WESTHILL-CALICUT-5**
- **5 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD TRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU,, KOZHIKODE673011.**
**ADV.**
**SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC, NATIONAL INS. CO LIMITED**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.776/2010, MACA.1699/2010, MACA.1670/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
5
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **MACA.No. 1699 of 2010**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 700/2002 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 18-08-2009**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
- **1 M.DAMODARAN,**
**S/O.KUTTAN, AGED 80, 33/100, METHOTH HOUSE,, CHALIL ROAD, NEAR MASS CORNER, MALAPPARAMBAKOZHIKODE.**
- **2 M.DEVAYANI, AGED 1 YEARS**
- **W/O.DAMODARAN, 33/100, METHOTH HOUSE, CHALIL ROAD, NEAR MASS CORNER, MALAPPARAMBA-KOZHIKODE.**
- **3 REEJA. M. M., AGED 52, D/O LATE DEVAYANI, 33/100 METHOTH HOUSE, CHALIL ROAD, NEAR MASS CORNER, MALAPARAMBA,KOZHIKODE.(IMPLEADED AS ADDL 3RD APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL AS PER ORDER DATED 24/10/2018 IN IA 1/2018 IN MACA 1699/2010).**
**BY ADVS.**
**SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
6
## **2[nd] page of MACA 1699/2010**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 LISSY, D/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 34, 33/100, METHOTH HOUSE, CHALIL ROAD, NEAR MASS CORNER,MALAPPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE.**
- **2 PONVALAPPAN S/O.SENGODA COUDER,, 7, RCC, 260-261, S.G.MATT ROAD,, CHAMRAJPET ROAD, BANGALURU.**
- **3 SIVANANDAN M., S/O.MARAPPAN, 76 E, PARALI P.O.,, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU.**
- **4 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AND 4A, PARAMATTY ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU637 001.**
- **5 P.P.NAUSHIQUE, PARTNER, KOYENCO BAZAZR, WESTHILL-CALICUT-5.**
- **6 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., THRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE.**
**BY ADVS. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.776/2010, MACA.1892/2010, MACA.1670/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
7
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **MACA.No. 1670 of 2010**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 276/2002 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 18-08-2009**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
- **1 P.NOORJAHAN AND OTHERS W/O LATE ABDUL GHAFOOR, AGED 33, PANAKKATE HOUSE,, KONGANNUR P.O., ATHOLI VIA,, KOZHIKODE.**
- **2 FAIDYA GHAFOOR D/O ABDUL GHAFOOR AGED 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, THE 1ST APPELLANT.**
- **3 FASINA GHAFOOR D/O ABDUL GHAFOOR AGED 10 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, THE 1ST APPELLANT.**
- **4 P.ABOOBACKER SO MOHAMMED HAJI AGED 71, PANAKKATE HOUSE,, KONGANNUR P.O., ATHOLI VIA,, KOZHIKODE.**
- **5 P.ASSIA WO ABOOBACKER AGED 65 PANAKKATE HOUSE, KONGANNUR P.O.,, ATHOLI VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
8
**2[nd] page of MACA 1670/2010**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 PONVALAPPAN AGED 1 YEARS S/O.SENGODA COUDER, 7,RCC,260-261, S.G.MATT ROAD,, CHAMRAJPET ROAD, BANGALURU. (DELETED)**
**1ST RESPONDENT DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 24/10/2018 IN IA 1/2018 IN MACA 1670/2010.**
- **2 SIVANANDAN.M SO MARAPPAN AGED 76 YEARS PARALI P.O., NAMAKKAL,, TAMIL NADU.**
- **3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 4A, PARAMATTY ROAD, NAMAKKAL,, TAMIL NADU637001.**
- **4 P.P.NAUSHIQUE PARTNER KOYENCO BAZAR, WESTHILL-CALICUT-5.**
- **5 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU,, KOZHIKODE.**
**BY ADVS. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.776/2010, MACA.1892/2010, MACA.1699/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
9
## **JUDGMENT**
**[ MACA 776/2010 ,MACA.1892/2010 ,MACA.1699/2010 ,MACA.1670/2010 ]**
**A road traffic accident which led to the death of the driver and two passengers in a car, gave rise to the claims, in which a common award was passed in three cases; from which the four appeals arise. Two appeals are by the legal heirs of the two deceased. The other two appeals are also by the legal heirs of the other deceased; but, however, the wife and parents having filed separate appeals.**
**2. In the appeal filed by the parents [MACA.No.1699 of 2010], there is an impleading petition filed, since the mother of the deceased is no more. A daughter and the father are now the appellants in the said appeal.**
**3. In the appeal of the wife [MACA.No.776 of 2010], the deceased mother is also a party [7[th]**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
10
**respondent]. In the circumstance of the legal heir having been impleaded in the other appeal [MACA.No.1699 of 2010], this Court vide order dated 31.10.2018** _**suo motu**_ **impleaded the daughter of respondents 6 and 7 as additional 8[th] respondent.**
**4. The date of accident is 06.08.2001 and negligence was found on the part of the lorry driver, who was driving the offending lorry which caused the accident. The offending vehicle is also covered by a valid insurance policy, whose insurer has been mulcted with the liability to compensate the legal heirs of the victims. The only contention now before this Court is for enhancement of the compensation, which shall be considered independently in all the three cases.**
**5. The deceased were the Finance Manager, Assistant Finance Manager and Driver of M/s Koyenco Expellers Pvt. Ltd. They were also on an official tour. The deceased were named Rejin, the Finance Manager, Abdul Gafoor, The Assistant Finance Manager and Gireesh, the Driver.**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
11
**6. Rejin left behind his parents and wife. The parents have filed MACA No.1699/2010 and wife has filed MACA No.776/2010. Abdul Gafoor left behind his wife and three children as also his mother who filed MACA No.1670/2010. Gireesh the driver left behind his wife, a minor child and his parents who have filed MACA No.1892/2010. Enhancement has to be considered independently since the deceased were employed in various capacities in the company on whose official work, the deceased were travelling when the accident occurred.**
**MACA Nos.1699/2010 and 776/2010 ( OP(MV) No.700/2002)**
**7. The above claim relates to the death of the Finance Manager Rejin who was aged 37 years at the time of the accident. The legal heirs had produced Ext.A10 certificate for proving the employment. PW1 and PW2 employees of the Company and PW3 the Director of the Company was examined to prove the salary certificate. The Tribunal very strangely took a view that there is nothing to show that the salary shown in Ext.A10 was**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
12
**accepted by the deceased, when he was alive. The Register of pay and allowances was also not produced was the finding of the Tribunal. I have gone through the salary certificate produced at Ext.A10 which is available in the records which indicates that the said Rejin was employed as Finance Manager in Koyenco Expellers Kerala Pvt. Ltd. The certificate is dated 07.11.2001 and is signed by a Director of the Company. PW 1 was the Accounts Manager of the Company. The said witness had joined in the company only in the year 2006 but he had deposed the fact that Sri.Rejin and Sri Abdul Gafoor were employed in the company as Manager and Assistant Manager of the Company. PW 2 is a Director of the Company who has specifically deposed on the employment of Rejin as also about his remuneration being Rs.12,500/-. PW3 is the Secretary of the Company , who also deposed that he has given evidence after looking into the Company's registers. In such circumstance, there is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve the certificate of pay and allowances. The**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
13
**income of the deceased at the time of death is taken as Rs.12,500/-.**
**7. Since filial consortium has to be granted as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**2018 (11) SCALE 247 = 2018(4) RCR (Civil)333 [Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others]**_ **Rs.40,000/- each has to be granted to the parents as also the wife. In such circumstance there need be no award on loss of love and affection. The multiplier to be applied as per the precedents is as per the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents and hence 15 will have to be adopted. Going by the binding precedent** _**in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others [(2010) 2 KLT 802]**_ **and** _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (5) KHC 350]**_ **the following enhancement has to be granted.**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
14
||**Award granted**|**Award after**|
|---|---|---|
|||**enhancement**|
|**Transport to hospital**|**2500**|**5000**|
|**Damage to clothing**|**500**|**500**|
|**Funeral expenses**|**3000**|**15000**|
|**Loss of love and**|**12000**||
|**affection**|||
|**Loss of estate**|**10000**|**15000**|
|**Loss of consortium**|**10000**|**80000**|
|**Loss of dependency**|**448000**|**2250000***|
|||**(12500+50/100)**|
|||**18750x15x12x2/3 ***|
|**Total**|**486000**<br>|**2365500 ***|
## **9. The same would have to be shared in the**
**proportion of 2:1:1. Hence the appellant in MACA 1699/2010 will get ½ of the amounts and the appellants in MACA 776/2010 will get the other half. Out of the amounts awarded to the appellants in M.A.C.A 1699 of 2010, the father is entitled to his share and one half of the mothers share and the sister to one half of the mothers share. MACA No.1670/2010 (in OP(MV) 276/2002)**
**10. The Assistant Finance Manager Abdul**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
15
**Gafoor who died in the accident was aged 32 years at the time to his death. Ext.A4 was the document produced to show his remuneration which was Rs.5000/- per month. PW2 the Director was examined, who deposed to the fact that Abdul Gafoor was under the employment of the company and also proved Ext.A2 certificate. However, the Tribunal again disbelieved the same. In such circumstances, again the very same reasoning as above would have to be applied in the case of Abdul Gafoor also in considering the enhancement. The multiplier adopted would be 16. The following enhancement is granted again relying on the precedents above cited.**
|**Transport to hospital**|**2500**|**5000**|
|---|---|---|
|**Damage to clothing**|**500**|**500**|
|**Funeral expenses**|**3000**|**15000**|
|**Loss of love and affection**|**12000**|**-----**|
|**Loss of estate**|**7500**|**15000**|
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
16
|**Loss of consortium**|**10000**|**80000**|
|---|---|---|
|**Loss of dependency**|**340000**|**1080000**|
|||**((5000+2500)**|
|||***16*12*3/4)**|
|**Total**|**375000**|**1195500**|
**The same shall be proportionately shared as directed in the Tribunal's award. MACA1892/2010 (OP MV No.277/2002)**
**11. The deceased in the above case is a driver who is said to have joined the company only 2½ months ago before the date of the accident. He was aged 34 at the time of the accident and the Tribunal in the context of there being no evidence adopted a monthly income of Rs.2500/-. Again the multiplier applied is not proper and the multiplier has to be applied as 16 in the case of the Driver also. Considering the fact that there is no regular employment monthly income has to be increased at the rate of 40% for deciding the loss of**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
17
**dependency. The income adopted by the Tribunal is Rs.2500/- Though no proof of employment has been produced the claimants have now filed a petition producing the driving licence of the deceased which specifically indicates that the deceased was eligible to be employed as a driver. Considering the fact that he is qualified to do a skilled work and that for a coolie the Supreme Court adopted a monthly income of Rs.4500/- per month in the year 2004 in** _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236],**_ **it is only proper and reasonable that an income of Rs.3000/- is adopted as monthly income in the year 2001 for a driver. The following**
## **enhancement would be made.**
|**Transport to hospital**|**2500**|**5000**|
|---|---|---|
|**Damage to clothing**|**500**|**500**|
|**Funeral Expense**|**3000**|**15000**|
|**loss of love and**|||
|**affection**|**12000**|**-----**|
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
18
|**loss of estate**|**7500**|**15000**|
|---|---|---|
|**loss of consortium**|**10000**|**80000**|
|**Loss of dependency**|**340000**|**604800**|
|||**(3000+1200***|
|||**16*12*3/4)**|
||**375000**|**720300**|
**The same shall be proportionately shared as per the award of the Tribunal.**
**12. The amounts awarded as above, after deducting what has already been paid, shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment with interest from the date of application and costs, if any, as awarded by the Tribunal.**
**The appeals would stand allowed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs in the appeal.**
**Sd/-**
**jma**
**K. VINOD CHANDRAN,Judge**
MACA No.776/2010 and conn.
19
*** In the 14[th] page of the common judgment dated 07/11/2018 in M.A.C.A 776/2010, 1699/2010, 1670/2010 and 1892/2010, the calculation of computation for loss of dependency was originally shown as “2531250 (12500+50/100)18750x15x123/4” and the total compensation was shown as “2646750”. Now the same has been corrected as “2250000 (12500+50/100)18750x15x12x2/3” and “2365500” respectively, as per order dated 27.02.2019 in I.A 1/2019 in M.A.C.A Nos.1699, 776, 1670 and 1892 of 2010.**
**Sd/ Deputy Registrar**