Ayisha vs Shafeeq.P.

Johnson John, J

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 1622 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode and they are challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads on the ground that the same is inadequate.

The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Assain. According to the appellants, on 20.12.2016, at about 7.20 p.m. while the deceased was standing on the side of the road, a tipper lorry driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit him and on the same day, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer.

Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the petitioners and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents.

After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the first respondent and that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,45,000/- to the petitioners.

Heard Sri. A.V.M. Salahudeen, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 48 years and earning Rs.25,000/- per month from his coolie work. In the absence of any evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the same is on the lower side.

The principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027], shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. Even if the monthly income of the deceased is calculated by adopting the above principle, the same will only be Rs. 10,500/- and therefore, I find no merit in the contention of the appellants that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

It is pertinent to note that by following the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571], the Tribunal allowed an addition of 25% towards future prospects and for the conventional heads—loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, Rs.15,000, 40,000/- and Rs.15,000 respectively are allowed. The Tribunal also applied the correct multiplier of 13 by following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] and also granted interest for the award amount at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the petition till realization with proportionate cost.

On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.