The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing evidence to support claims for compensation in motor accident cases, and the application of principles laid down by higher courts in awarding compensation.

P.N. Ravindran, J.

The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(M.V.)No.267 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The first appellant is the wife, appellants 2 and 3 are the minor children and appellants 4 and 5 are the father and mother respectively of late Pradeep who died on 22.2.2006 while under treatment, following the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place at about 7 p.m. on 11.2.2006. The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor bike that belonged to the first respondent and was insured by the third respondent. It is stated that on account of the negligent driving by the first respondent, the motor bike hit a pedestrian and overturned, as a result of which the deceased was thrown on to the road and sustained serious injuries. The deceased was initially taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and thereafter referred to Brain and Spine Centre, Vaikom where in the course of treatment, he breathed his last at about 3.30 p.m. on 22.2.2006.

2. The appellants had in O.P.(M.V.)No.267 of 2006 sought a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. By award passed on 23.5.2008, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded the sum of Rs.4,98,000/- as compensation under various heads and directed the second respondent insurer to deposit the said sum together with interest at 9% per annum from 22.5.2006, the date of petition till realisation along with proportionate costs quantified at Rs.7,500/-. The claimants have, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, filed this appeal.

3. We heard Sri. George Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent insurer. Notice to the first respondent was dispensed with for the reason that the insurer has not disputed its liability to pay compensation. Sri. George Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The learned counsel contended that as the claimants, 5 in number, were dependent on the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th of the annual income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The learned counsel also contended that the deceased was a welder-cum-mechanic and was earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, that the said plea has not been controverted or proved to be incorrect by the respondents and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head loss of dependency treating the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)], the learned counsel contended that the compensation awarded under the heads funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium is liable to be revised and enhanced. The learned counsel also contended that the deceased died ten days after the accident while undergoing treatment, that he had suffered extensive head injuries and therefore, the compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering is also liable to be enhanced.

4. Per contra, Sri. Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent insurer contended that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to show that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- or even the fact that he was working as a welder-cum-mechanic, that no evidence is forthcoming to prove the case set out in the claim petition as regards the employment of the deceased or his monthly income and therefore, no exception can be taken to the award of compensation under the head loss of dependency. The learned counsel also contended that the appellants have also not proved that appellants 4 and 5 were also dependent on the deceased, that there is no evidence to the effect that appellants 4 and 5 have no other children or other means of