K. Ramakrishnan, J

M.A.C.A.No.1239/13 is filed by claimants in OP(MV)No.1457/04 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, while M.A.C.A No.1860/13 is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.13/05 of the same court.

2. Appellants in M.A.C.A.No.1239/13 are the parents of deceased Sreekumar and appellant in M.A.C.A No.1860/13 is the wife of late Sreekumar. They filed the applications for compensation for the death of Sreekumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle by first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. Both these cases were tried jointly by the Tribunal and disposed of by a common judgment.

3. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,94,000/- on various heads as follows and apportioned the amount between the claimants in the ratio 60% to the wife and 40% to the parents.

Head of claim Amount awarded (in

Rupees)

Funeral expenses 5,000/-

Transportation charges and

ambulance charges 1,000/-

Damage to clothing and vehicle 1,000/-

Pain and sufferings 10,000/-

Loss of dependency/earning

Power 5,44,000/-

Loss of estate 3,000/-

Loss of love and affection 15,000/-

Loss of consortium 15,000/-

Total 5,94,000/-

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the respective appeals before this court seeking enhancement.

4. In this case, since there were some conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the manner in which the income has to be ascertained for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' and also the quantum of compensation payable under the conventional heads 'loss of consortium and funeral expenses' etc., we have decided to consider these questions in detail in this case.

5. Heard the counsel for the appellants and counsel for the Insurance Company.

6. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was working as a spray paint worker in Oman and getting Rs.20,000/- per month, producing Ext.A6 the copy of the agreement with Bahwan Automotive Centre, Sultanate of Oman and Ext.A7 labour card and Ext.A8 passport to prove those facts. But, the Tribunal has discarded these documents and notionally fixed his income as Rs.4,000/-per month, which is palpably low is their contention. Further, in the decision reported in Rajesh v. Rajibir Singh 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that even in the case of self employed persons or persons with fixed wages, addition has to be made for future prospects at the rate of 50% for persons aged below 40 years, 30% for persons aged between 40 and 50 years and 15% for persons aged between 50 & 60 years and that a minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' and Rs.25,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses'. But, the Tribunal has not considered these aspects and the amount awarded under all heads are very low is the submission of the appellants. So, the appellants are entitled to get enhancement on all heads is their contention.

7. On the other hand, the counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the wife of the deceased had re-married and as such she is not entitled for loss of consortium and that her dependency has been reduced on account of the re-marriage. In the decision reported in SarlaVerma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802(SC) confirmed in ReshmaKumari v. Madan Mohan 2013 (2) KLT 304 (SC), the Honorable Supreme Court has held that future prospects can be considered only in the case of persons who are having permanent employment and income and not for other persons. So, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in not adding to the income for future prospects in this case is their contention. Since the parents are aged, and t