IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2111 of 2005()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RADHAMANI, W/O. LATE SURENDRAN @ MANI,
... Respondent
2. AJITH, S/O. LATE SURENDRAN @ MANI,
3. ANJU, D/O. LATE SURENDRAN @ MANI,
4. P.N. GOPALAN, F/O. LATE SURENDRAN @ MANI
5. PADMINI, W/O. GOPALAN.
6. VINEEESH M.G., S/O. GOPALAN
7. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. SEKHARAN,
8. T.K. KUNHABDULLA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.S.EASWARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :19/03/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The insurer/3rd respondent before the Tribunal is the
appellant before us. The claimants had claimed compensation
for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the
deceased in a motor accident which took place on 31/3/01. He
succumbed to the injuries later on the same day. The
claimants are the wife aged 35 years, two minor children and
both parents of the deceased. They claimed an amount of
Rs.6 lakhs as compensation.
2. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant/wife examined
herself as P.W.1. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The deceased,
it was asserted, was a business man running a provision store.
He was an agriculturist too, it was contended. Exts.A5, A6
M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 -: 2 :-
and A7 reveal that the deceased was running a provision store
and had taken the requisite licence; had paid the requisite
licence fee and was a member of the Kerala Vyapara Vyavasai
Ekopana Samithi. A passbook showing the milk supplied by the
deceased to a local milk production society was also produced.
3. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the
relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimants are
entitled to a total amount of Rs.4,74,000/- as compensation as
per the details given in para-7 extracted below:
"Transport charges - Rs.1,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs.3,000/-
Loss of estate - Rs.2,000/-
Pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/-
Loss of consortium - Rs.10,000/-
Dependency
(3500 x 12 x 2/3 x 16) - Rs.4,48,000/-
--------------------
Total - Rs.4,74,000/-"
========
That amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum.
4. The appellant/insurer claims to be aggrieved by the
impugned award. What is the grievance? The grievance is
raised only about the quantum of compensation awarded.
Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge which
the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the
M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 -: 3 :-
learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the
Tribunal had erred grossly in accepting Rs.3,500/- as the
multiplicand and 16 as the multiplier. The deceased is shown to
be aged 40 years. Except the oral evidence of his wife – P.W.1,
there was no better evidence in support of the assertion that the
deceased was earning an income of Rs.10,000/- per mensem.
However, the Tribunal, though it chose not to accept the
evidence of P.W.1 completely, sailed to the conclusion that the
deceased must have been earning an income of Rs.3,500/- per
mensem at least. The learned counsel contends that this
assumption is unrealistic and not acceptable.
5. That he was a business man running a provision store is
proved beyond the trace of doubt. What amount such person
would have been earning is the only question. No better
documents are produced. The oral evidence of P.W.1 was
rightly not swallowed by the court as gospel truth. It can
certainly be taken note of by a prudent mind that the deceased
was having his wife aged 35 years and 2 children aged 13 years
and 10 years as also his aged parents and a mentally retarded
brother depending upon him. Drawing reasonable inferences of
prudence, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income. We feel that
the Tribunal has committed no error in accepting the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/-.
M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 -: 4 :-
6. The next challenge is against the multiplier adopted.
For persons aged 35 to 40 years the multiplier as per the 2nd
Schedule is 16; whereas the persons of the age group of 40 to 45
years, the multiplier is 15. The Tribunal accepted it as 16.
There was no specific evidence to choose whether the deceased
would fall within the former of the latter group. We are not
persuaded to agree that the Tribunal committed any such gross
error warranting appellate interference in reckoning the
multiplier as 16.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that
inadequacy of specific evidence to show whether the deceased
had crossed the age of 40 years cannot be reckoned as too
significant in a case like the instant one. The learned counsel
points out that no amount has been awarded under the head of
loss of love and affection. For 35 years old wife, compensation
for loss of consortium has been granted only at Rs.10,000/-. The
interest has been awarded only at 6% though precedents galore
to suggest that interest must be awarded at least at the rate of
7.5%. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the
claimants submits that the total amount of compensation
awarded is eminently fair, reasonable and just and, at any rate,
interference with the multiplier is not warranted at all. We are
persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the claimants.
M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 -: 5 :-
We do not find merit in the challenge raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant.
8. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
R. BASANT
(Judge)
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Nan/ (Judge)