IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 869 of 2005()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FATHIMA, D/O.MAMU,
... Respondent
2. AJESH KUMAR, S/O.KUTTAPPA,
3. K.GEETHA, W/O.SUBRAHMANYAN,
4. S.P.MOHAMMED, S/O.ABDULLA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.ESM.KABEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :02/09/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005
---------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
The appellant is the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company
in OP(MV) No. 271/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Tirur. The first respondent in this appeal who is the
claimant in OP is the mother of deceased Kaisumon who
died in a motor accident that occurred on 3rd April, 2002 at
about 1.15 p.m. near Kumaranellur Vetinary hospital
Junction. The accident happened while the deceased and his
friend one Abid were walking along the side of the road, they
were knocked down by the bus bearing registration No. KLL-
10K/8479. They sustained serious injuries and succumbed
to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment at the
hospital. Alleging negligence against the driver of the bus,
the first respondent, the claimants filed O.P u/S. 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs.
M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005
2
2. Respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P who are the driver and
owner of the offending bus remained absent before the
Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, the Insurer of the offending
bus filed a written statement admitting the policy of the
offending bus.
3. This O.P was jointly tried along with O.P No. 270/2002
filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Abid and a common
award was passed.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on
the side of claimants. No evidence was adduced by the
contesting 3rd respondent, the appellant herein. On an
appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the first
respondent in O.P, the driver of the offending bus and
awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization and a cost of Rs. 1500/-. The Insurance Company
has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of
M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005
3
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
and that of the claimants.
6. The accident is not disputed. The only question which
arises for consideration is whether the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is excessive ?
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.
3,69,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as
under:
For loss of dependency :Rs. 3,60,000
For pain and suffering, :Rs. 9,500
loss of estate, for loss of
love and affection, funeral
expenses etc.. —————
Total :Rs. 3,69,500
=======
8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased
as Rs. 3,000/-. After deducting 1/3 for his personal
expenses, took Rs. 2000/- per month as his monthly
contribution to his family and adopted a multiplier of 15 and
awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- for loss of
M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005
4dependency.
9. The counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company
argued that as there was no evidence to prove the income of
the deceased, the Tribunal is not justified in taking his
monthly income as Rs. 3000/-. The counsel for the appellant
further argued that as the deceased was a bachelor, the
Tribunal should have adopted one half of his income for his
personal expenses and adopted a lesser multiplier in this
case. We find no merit in the above contention of the
appellant. According to the claimants, the deceased was a
tailor earning to Rs. 4,000/- per month. Further even a
coolie would fetch a minimum income of Rs. 100/- per month
in those days. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in
taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-.
There is no evidence to show that the claimant has any
other children. Under these circumstances we feel that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005
5
reasonable and not excessive.
10. In the light of our above findings, the appeal is devoid
of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.
A.K. BASHEER
Judge
P.Q. BARKATH ALI
Judge
PKK