New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smith Raj V., Arya Smith Raj, Arsha Smith Raj, V. Ravendran, N.K. Chandrika (deceased), Bindu N.K, Divya N.K.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.4193 OF 2019(F)** ## **AWARD in OP(MV) No.268/2016 DATED 23-05-2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., N.S.TOWERS, SETHU KRISHNA TRACE CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, 133/31-1, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, GUGAI, SELAM - 636 006, REP BY THE ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI - 682 011. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH SMT.CIYARA O.M.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**SMITH RAJ V.,**| |---|---| ||**S/O.ANANTHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, PUNATHUMKANDY HOUSE,**| ||**MOCHERI, POST, MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670**| ||**622.**| |**2**|**ARYA SMITH RAJ,**| ||**D/O.SMITH RAJ, AGED 24 YEARS, PUNATHUMKANDY HOUSE,**| ||**MOCHERI POST, MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670**| ||**622.**| |**3**|**ARSHA SMITH RAJ,**| ||**D/O.SMITH RAJ, AGED 20 YEARS PUNATHUMKANDY HOUSE,**| ||**MOCHERI POST, MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670**| ||**622.**| |**4**|**V.RAVEENDRAN,**| ||**S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 69 YEARS, PRAVEENA NIVAS,**| ||**KEEZHKARA, MAVILAYI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670**| ||**622.**| |**5**|**N.K.CHANDRIKA, (DECEASED),**| ||**S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 63 YEARS, PRAVEENA NIVAS,**| ||**KEEZHARA, MAVILAYI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670**| ||**622.**| MACA No.4193 of 2019 2 **6 BINDU N.K, AGED 43 YEARS D/O.V.RAVEENDRAN AND W/O.B.P.BALAKRISHNAN, MINNARAM, PANAYATHAPARAMBU, MURINGERI, ANJARAKANDI, KEEZHALLUR POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670612.** **7 DIVYA N.K., AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.V.RAVEENDRAN AND W/O.SAJITH KUMAR.M., MORAYI HOUSE, CHALA EAST, KADACHIRA, CHALA POST, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670621. (ADDL. RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R5 AS PER ORDER DATED 23/01/2020 IN I.A.NO.1/20 IN THE MACA)** **R1-4, R6-7 BY ADV. SRI.ABU MATHEW R1-4, R6-7 BY ADV. SRI.AJU MATHEW** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.4193 of 2019 3 ## **“CR”** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the 3[rd] respondent insurer in O.P.(MV)No.268 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Praveena N.K., wife of the 1[st] respondent, mother of respondents 2 and 3 and daughter of respondents 4 and 5, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 5.12.2015, while she was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-13/U-8663. At the place of accident the scooter was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.TN-21/AX-2772 driven by the 1[st] respondent and owned by the 2[nd] respondent before the Tribunal and insured with the appellant insurer. She was ran over by the lorry, who succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.65,00,000/- under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, the driver and owner of the lorry remained absent and they were set ex parte. The appellant insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage of the lorry MACA No.4193 of 2019 4 involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the driver of that vehicle. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the scooter by the deceased. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 series were marked on the side of the claimants. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. 4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the appellant insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.57,16,800/- together with interest at the rate 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with proportionate cost, and the appellant insurer was directed to satisfy the award. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned among the claimants, equally. 5. The appellant insurer is before this Court, in this appeal, MACA No.4193 of 2019 5 by contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads loss of dependency; loss of estate; and pain and suffering of the deceased is on the higher side. During the pendency of this appeal, the 5[th] respondent, the mother of the deceased died and her legal heirs, the siblings of the deceased, are impleaded as additional respondents 6 and 7. 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant insurer and also the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and additional respondents respondents 6 and 7. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads loss of dependency; loss of estate; and pain and suffering of the deceased is on the higher side. 8. In **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** the Apex Court laid down the principles governing determination of quantum of compensation in the case of death in a motor accident. The Apex Court held that, the compensation awarded does not become 'just compensation' merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a MACA No.4193 of 2019 6 result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by following the well settled steps, namely, ascertaining the multiplicand (annual contribution to the family), the multiplier and calculation of loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand by such multiplier. 9. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and nonviolation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the MACA No.4193 of 2019 7 compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, i.e., just compensation. 10. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; |Sl.<br>No|Head of claim|Amount claimed<br>(in Rs.)|Amount awarded<br>(in RS.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Medical expenses|50,000/-|-| |2|Transport expenses|20,000/-|5,000/-| |3|Funeral expenses|1,00,000/-|15,000/-| |4|Loss of earning of<br>bystanders|50,000/-|-| |5|Pain and suffering|3,00,000/-|30,000/-| |6|Loss of dependency<br>and future prospects|54,80,000/-|53,91,736/- (loss of<br>dependency for all)| |7|Loss of love and<br>affection|5,00,000/-|2,00,000/-| ||Loss of estate|-|75,000/-| ||total|65,00,000/-|Rs.57,16,736/- rounded<br>off to Rs.57,16,800/-| 11. At the time of accident the deceased was aged 41 years and she was working as a Lower Primary School Assistant, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.34,288/-. The Tribunal added 30% of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi,** deducted 10% towards income tax, 1/5[th] towards the personal and living expenses, and awarded a sum of Rs.53,91,736/-towards loss of dependency, by applying a multiplier of 14. MACA No.4193 of 2019 8 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant insurer would contend that the 1[st] respondent, who is the husband of the deceased, and the 4[th] respondent, who is the father of the deceased, cannot be treated as her dependants, in the absence of evidence. Therefore, the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, the children of the deceased, and the deceased 5[th] respondent, the mother of the deceased, alone can be treated as her dependants. Hence, 1/3[rd] of the monthly income of the deceased has to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that, the 1[st] respondent, who is the husband of the deceased, who is only an agriculturist, was a dependant of the deceased. The 4[th] respondent, who is the father of the deceased, was also her dependant. Therefore, 1/4[th] of the monthly income of the deceased has to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses. 14. In **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** the Apex Court, on the question of deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased held that, the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from his monthly income, to arrive at the contribution to MACA No.4193 of 2019 9 the dependants. Where the deceased was **married** , the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be **one-third** where the number of dependant family members is **2 to** **3** ; **one-fourth** where the number of dependant family members is **4 to 6** ; and **one-fifth** where the number of dependant family members **exceeds 6** . In regard to **bachelors** , normally, **50%** is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is **large and dependant on** MACA No.4193 of 2019 10 **the income of the deceased** , as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to **one-third** and contribution to the family will be taken as **twothird** . 15. In **Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reproduced paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of **Sarla Verma** and approved the same, in paragraph 38 of the decision, by stating that, the standards fixed in **Sarla Verma** provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependant members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants. Therefore, the standards fixed in **Sarla Verma** on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the MACA No.4193 of 2019 11 circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out. In paragraph 43.6 the Apex Court directed that, insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in **Sarla Verma** , subject to the observations made in para 38 of **Reshma Kumari** . 16. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, after considering the analysis made in **Sarla Verma** , which was reconsidered in **Reshma Kumari** , approved the method provided therein by stating that, as far as the guidance provided for appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the Tribunals and Courts should be guided by the conclusion in paragraph 43.6 of **Reshma Kumari** . 17. In **Sujatha P. and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2017 (5) KHC 568]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that in the matter of deduction of personal and living expenses of the deceased, while calculating dependency compensation, what is relevant is not the actual number of the claimants or surviving family members, but what matters is the number of surviving **dependant family members** . In the said case, the deceased was aged 65 years. The 1[st] appellant widow was MACA No.4193 of 2019 12 aged 52 years. Appellants 2 and 3, who are the children of the deceased were aged 34 years and 32 years respectively at the time of death of their father. Before the Tribunal or before this Court, they did not adduce any evidence to prove that they were actually dependant on their father owing to any particular circumstances. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the monthly income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said decision read thus; “6. Going by the decision in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport** **Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** , it depends upon the marital status or the number of surviving dependent family members of the deceased. In case the deceased was a bachelor 50% of the income shall be deducted on that count while calculating dependency compensation. If the deceased was married it depends on the number of surviving dependent family members. The decision would thus make it clear that what is relevant in that regard, is not the actual number of claimants or surviving family members, but what matters is the number of surviving dependent family members. The 1[st] appellant, the widow was aged 52 years at the time of death of Sri.Ramakrishnan and the fact that she is being paid family pension is not in dispute. Appellants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and they were aged 34 years and 32 respectively at the time of death of their father. In such circumstances, whether they were actually dependent on their MACA No.4193 of 2019 13 father owing to any particular circumstance, was certainly a matter for appellants 2 and 3 to establish. They did not adduce any evidence whatsoever to persuade the Tribunal or us, to treat them as dependents of their father even at that age. Hence, we do not find any reason to hold that the Tribunal had gone wrong in arriving at a conclusion regarding the dependency of the appellants herein, for the purpose of effecting deduction from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses which he would have incurred had he been alive. In short, it is to be held that the Tribunal has rightly held that the 1[st] appellant alone could be treated as the dependent of the deceased at the time of his accidental death. 7. Then, the question is what should have been the extent of income deductible, rather, to be deducted in terms of the decision in **Sarla Verma** towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased which he would have incurred had he been alive? 8. For answering the aforesaid question, it is only appropriate to refer to paragraphs 30 to 32 of the decision in **Sarla Verma** . When the number of surviving dependent family is only one, deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has to be 50% of the income. It is stated in paragraph 32 of the said decision thus: “32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is MACA No.4193 of 2019 14 large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as twothird.” Thus the said decision would fortify our view. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the 50% of the income, instead of its 1/3[rd] , for the aforesaid purpose. Our view is further strengthened by the fact that in **Sarla Verma** , 1/3[rd] deduction of the income is ordered where the number of dependent family members is '2' or '3' and when it is '4' to '6', 1/4[th] of the income has to be deducted. Going by the decision, if the said number is above six, 1/8[th] of the income is to be deducted on the aforesaid count. Thus, our finding that 50% of the income has to be deducted when there is only one surviving dependent family members towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would gain support from the decision in **Sarla Verma** .” 18. In **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinish Jain [(2018) 3 SCC 619]** the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which, the deceased was aged 78 years. At the time of death, his annual income was assessed at Rs.3,64,500/-. The Tribunal deducted only 1/3[rd] towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Apex Court held that the deduction made for personal expenses at 1/3[rd] is very low keeping in view the fact that MACA No.4193 of 2019 15 the claimants are his two major sons and two granddaughters. The major sons have their own source of income and were not dependant on the deceased and the two granddaughters are primarily dependant on their father and not on their grandfather. Therefore, **50%** deduction is called for. 19. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 41 years. She is survived her husband, who was aged 49 years, two unmarried daughters aged 21 years and 17 years respectively, and her parents aged 66 years and 60 years respectively. Before the Tribunal the claimants did not adduce any evidence to prove that respondents 1 and 4, the husband and the father of the deceased were actually her dependants, owing to any particular circumstances. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellants 1 to 4/claimants 1 to 4 submitted that the husband of the deceased is an agriculturist. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to prove dependency, the husband of the deceased cannot be treated as a dependant family member of the deceased, for the purpose of effecting deduction from her monthly income towards personal and living expenses. At the time of accident, the father of the deceased was aged 66 years. The deceased was his eldest daughter. His other two daughters, who are MACA No.4193 of 2019 16 impleaded as additional respondents 6 and 7 in this appeal, were aged 40 years and 33 years respectively, at the time of accident. In the absence of any evidence to prove dependency, the father of the deceased cannot also be treated as a dependant family member of the deceased, for the purpose of effecting deduction from her monthly income towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, appellants 2 and 3, the children of the deceased, and the deceased 5[th] respondent, who is the mother of the deceased, alone can be treated as her dependant family members, for the purpose of effecting deduction from her monthly income towards personal and living expenses. Since the number of dependant family members of the deceased is only 3, deduction of **1/3[rd]** of the monthly income of the deceased has to be made towards her personal and living expenses, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma** , and the Tribunal went wrong in deducting only 1/5[th] of her monthly income towards personal and living expenses. 20. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the Constitution Bench held that, while determining the income, an addition of **50%** of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a **permanent job** and was **below the age of 40 years** , should be made. The addition should MACA No.4193 of 2019 17 be **30%** , if the age of the deceased was **between 40 to 50 years** . In case the deceased was between the age of **50 to 60 years** , the addition should be **15%** . Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. The Apex Court held further that, in case the deceased was **self-employed** or on a **fixed salary** , an addition of **40%** of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was **below the age of 40 years** . An addition of **25%** where the deceased was **between the age of 40 to 50 years** and **10%** where the deceased was **between the age of 50 to 60 years** should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 21. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 41 years. She was working as a Lower Primary School Assistant, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.34,288/-. Relying on the decision in **Pranay Sethi** , the Tribunal rightly added **30%** of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects, since the deceased had a permanent job and she was **between the age of** ## **40 to 50 years** . 22. In **Sarla Verma [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** , the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in **Kerala State Road** MACA No.4193 of 2019 18 **Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]** , **U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]** and **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720]** held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said decision [prepared by applying **Susamma Thomas** , **Trilok Chandra** and **Charlie** ], which starts with an operative multiplier of **18** [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years], reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **17** for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of **16** for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of **15** for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of **14** for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of **13** for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **11** for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of **9** for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of **7** for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of **5** for 66 to 70 years. 23. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, as far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds a place in paragraph 19 of **Sarla Verma** , read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. MACA No.4193 of 2019 19 24. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 41 years. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma's case** and **Pranay Sethi's case** referred to supra, the multiplier of **14** applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 25. Towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal awarded Rs.53,91,736/-. At the time of accident the deceased was working as a Lower Primary School Assistant, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.34,288/-. The Tribunal added 30% of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi,** deducted 10% towards income tax, 1/5[th] towards the personal and living expenses, and awarded a sum of Rs.53,91,736/-towards loss of dependency, by applying a multiplier of 14. 26. Adding 30% of the monthly income of Rs.34,288/towards future prospects and deducting 10% towards income tax, the multiplicand is taken as Rs.40,117/- [(34,288 + 10,286) – 4,457]. Deducting 1/3[rd] towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 14, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is reworked as Rs.44,93,104/(40,117 x 12 x 14 x 2/3). In the result, the compensation awarded MACA No.4193 of 2019 20 by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency is scaled down by **Rs.8,98,632/-** (53,91,736 – 44,93,104). 27. In the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- as compensation under the head loss of estate. 28. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that the reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, **loss of estate** , **loss of consortium** and **funeral expenses** should be **Rs.15,000/-** , **Rs.40,000/-** and **Rs.15,000/-** respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. The Apex Court observed that, it would be condign that the amounts that have quantified as above should be enhanced on percentage basis **in every three years** and the enhancement should be at the rate of **10% in a span of three years** , which will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 29. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** an amount Rs.15,000/- can be granted under the head loss of estate. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of estate is re-fixed as Rs.15,000/-. In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of estate is scaled down by **Rs.60,000/-** (75,000 – MACA No.4193 of 2019 21 15,000). 30. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering of the deceased. 31. In **Jyni and others v. Raphel P.T. and others [2016 (2) KHC 870]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, death in an accident is generally the result of violent impact on the body resulting in serious injuries causing severe pain. The magnitude of the ordeal may vary from case to case depending upon the nature of injuries sustained. In cases of instantaneous deaths also pain and suffering is invariably present, as in the case of survival for hours or days. In cases of instantaneous death as well as cases where the deceased was unconscious between the time of accident and the time of his death, some notional amount is payable under the head pain and suffering. A slightly higher amount can be awarded under this head, if the death is not instantaneous. Therefore, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/could be awarded under the head pain and suffering in such cases. 32. In the instant case, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. Considering the said fact, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings of the deceased is re-fixed as Rs.5,000/-. In the result, the MACA No.4193 of 2019 22 compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering of the deceased is scaled down by **Rs.25,000/-** (30,000 – 5,000). 33. In the result, the total compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)No.268 of 2016 is scaled down by **Rs.9,83,632/-** [8,98,632 + 60,000 + 25,000], thereby re-fixing the total compensation as Rs.47,33,168/- (57,16,800 – 9,83,632), together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 09.03.2016 till realisation, with proportionate costs. The disbursement of the amount of compensation to claimants 1 to 4 and to the legal heirs of the deceased 5[th] claimant shall be made in terms of the directions contained in the impugned award and in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. If not already produced, claimants 1 to 4 and the legal heirs of the deceased 5[th] claimant shall provide their Bank account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, with copy to the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer within one MACA No.4193 of 2019 23 month from the date of certified copy of this judgment. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** Mrcs