The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for various heads in a motor accident claim, and the reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC) to enhance the compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering.

P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

1. The appellants are the claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 282 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. They are the parents, wife and minor children respectively of P.C. Abdul Rasheed who passed away on 12.3.2008 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place at about 12 noon on the same day. The deceased was riding a motor bike along with his son (the fourth claimant) when a stage carriage bus bearing registration No. KL-10-V-3999 driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent hit the motor bike from behind, as a result of which the deceased fell down and was run over. It is stated that P.C. Abdul Rasheed died on the way to hospital. The claimants contended that the deceased was employed at Riyadh in Saudi Arabia for the past 20 years and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/- corresponding to 4800 Saudi Riyals and the accident happened while he had come on leave. They contended that the first respondent was driving the stage carriage bus in a rash and negligent manner and at an uncontrollable speed and that the accident happened solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.

2. Upon receipt of summons, the third respondent insurer entered appearance and filed a written statement admitting the existence of a valid insurance policy. They however contended that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor bike by the deceased. The owner and the driver of the bus did not enter appearance, though they were served. With the result, they were set exparte. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the wife of the deceased (the third claimant) was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 were produced and marked. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced on the side of the respondents. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal considered the rival contentions and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The third respondent insurer was directed to pay the compensation which was apportioned among various claimants together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimants have, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, filed this appeal.

3. We heard Sri. P. Samsudin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. K.B. Ramanand, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent Sri. P. Samsudin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended relying on Ext.A11 salary certificate that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/- corresponding to 4800 Saudi Riyals, that the accident took place while he was in India on leave, that PW1 has deposed to the said fact and therefore, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in brushing aside Ext.A11 certificate and in holding that the claimants have not proved that the deceased was employed in Saudi Arabia or that he was earning a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as salary. The learned counsel contended that the mere fact that Exts.A10 and A12 do not disclose any remittance after 11.10.2006 is by itself not a reason to hold that the deceased was not earning any income, when the employer has in Ext.A12 certified that he was being paid a salary of 4800 Saudi Riyals till 19.12.2007. Referring to the averments in I.A. No. 1721 of 2015 filed today, as also page No. 12 of Ext.A9(c) passport, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the entries therein would reveal that the deceased possessed a re-entry visa valid till 18.4.2008 and that in Ext.A11 certificate dated 12th Shahban 1431 corresponding to 24.7.2010 the employer has stated that after availing annual leave, the deceased left for India as per exit and re-entry visa No. 61672980 on 19.12.2007, that the employer has not stated in the certificate that the employment of the deceased stood terminated and therefor