JUDGMENT
T.S. Doabea, J.
1. This Order shall dispose of Misc. Appeal. No. 5 of 1992 and Misc. Appeal No. 231 of 1991. Both arise out of the same award dealing with the same accident. The facts have been taken from M.A. No 5/92.
2. A truck No. MPG 485 turned turtle. This happened because there was failure of the brake system. The incident is said to have been taken place on 28th of May, 1985. Ram Villas Sharma said to be a person employed by the owner of the truck received injuries to which he succumbed in the hospital on the same day. A claim petition was filed by the widow, two minor daughters and the son. It was found that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 600/- per month and was contributing fifty per cent of this to the family kitty. The age of the deceased was 30 years. A multiplier of fifteen was applied and the compensation was assessed at Rs. 54,000/-. Rs. 15000/- having already been paid towards no-fault liability, a direction was given to pay the remainder of the amount, of Rs. 39,000/-. This was to bear interest which was fixed at Rs. 15% per annum. Both claimants as well as the Insurance Company were dissatisfied with the award given by the Tribunal. Both have appealed.
3. The plea of the Insurance Company is that the deceased was not employed as a workman but was travelling as a passenger. For this reliance has been made on averments contained in paras 1 to 3 of the claim petition and also the reply filed by the owner of the truck. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the deceased was not travelling as a passenger but was employed by the owner of the truck as labourer on the truck. I do not find any reason to differ with the finding so recorded by the Tribunal. Even though the owner of the truck has denied the assertions made by the claimant, he had chosen not to appear in the witness box. This is obvious. The owner of the truck was not prepared to face the cross-examination to which he would have been subjected to. The owner of the truck was a contractor and was engaged in construction activity. The truck was being used by the contractor for carrying on building material. The mere fact that the claimants have mentioned that the deceased was working at the site would not change his status from a labourer to a passenger. This deceased was employed by the contractor. If he was loading, and unloading the goods or was doing some other work at the site would not in any way take him out of the purview of the term ‘labourer’ for the purpose of awarding compensation to his heirs. As such, there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the company.
4. So far as the claim of the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, this may also be noticed. According to the claimants, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 600/- per month and he was contributing Rs. 300/- to his family kitty. According to him, this figure should have been put at Rs. 400/ -. He has also claimed compensation for loss of consortium. For this, reliance has been placed on the decision given in the case of General Manager. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushmma Thomas and Ors. . According to the claimants, the Supreme Court has fixed a sum of Rs. 15000/- as the conventional figure for the head, loss of consortium and this figure would be the same whether a person is a labourer or belonging to some other category of social heirarchy. There is merit in this contention of the petitioner. Taking note of the Supreme Court decision in the aforesaid case, it is held that the widow would be entitled to compensation for loss of consortium and this figure is put at Rs. 15,000/-. This claimants would also be entitled to interest on this amount. No interference is called with regard to other amount of compensation assessed by Tribunal.
5. The claimants have argued that the Tribunal has not awarded full interest. It has awarded interest only on Rs. 39,000/- and not on Rs. 15,000/- which was paid as no fault liability. I am not inclined to interfere on this aspect of the matter because the Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the aforementioned amount of Rs. 39,000/-.
6. So far as the enhancement made by this Court on account of loss of consortium is concerned, the amount would bear interest and this would be at the rate of 12% per annum. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5/92 is dismissed. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 231/91 is allowed to the extent indicated above. There would be no Order as to the costs.