IMPORTANT POINTS
Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years.

JUDGMENT :

K. Harilal, J.

Appellants are the petitioners in O. P. (MV) No. 161 of 2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Thalassery. The said Original Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the damage caused by the death of the deceased.

2. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased by name 'Mukundan'. After considering the evidence on record and the contention raised by the respondents resisting the claim, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting a compensation of Rs. 3,44,000/- with 7. 5% interest to the appellants. The inadequacy of the quantum of compensation under various heads of claim is challenged in this appeal.

3. According to the impugned award, the deceased Mukundan met with an accident, when he was riding a motorcycle. When he reached the place of accident, the offending vehicle driven by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent, hit the motorcycle and as a result of the hit, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He succumbed to the injuries, after one month. The Tribunal found that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent and thereby the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation, as the liability was covered by the policy issued by the Insurance Company.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants highlighting the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted under the various heads of claim. It is contended that the Tribunal has seriously erred in taking Rs. 3,000/-, as monthly income instead of Rs. 25,000/-, as claimed and proved by the production of Exts. A12 to A16 through PWs. 2 to 5. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral testimony of PWs. 2 to 5 and documentary evidence of Exts. A12 to A16 in its correct perspective. The amount granted under heads 'loss of estate', 'loss of consortium' and 'pain and sufferings' are inadequate and disproportionate with the actual loss suffered by the appellants by the death of the deceased Mukundan. The Tribunal has omitted to consider future business prospects of the deceased as a self-employed.

5. In view of the arguments at the Bar, the sole question that arises for consideration is, is the Tribunal justified in determining the quantum of compensation under the heads of claim referred above The main challenge is focused on the inadequacy of the amount fixed as monthly income.

6. I have meticulously gone through Issue No. 3, wherein the Tribunal determined Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income. Ext. A13 is the certificate issued by a bank stating that the deceased Mukundan has joined in a group deposit, as per which he was depositing Rs. 5,000/- per month and he has deposited money up to 18. 11. 2003 and the total amount deposited was Rs. 92,100/-.

7. It is pertinent to note that the date from which he started such a deposit is not specifically stated in the said certificate issued by the Bank. PW. 2 is the Manager, who issued Ext. A13. In cross-examination he stated that the payment was being made by way of daily collection and pan card of the person had not been shown to the Bank nor did the Bank demand any document showing payment of income tax. But, he denied the suggestion that the said Mukundan was paying the amount for someone else.

8. Ext. A5 series are receipts showing payment of daily deposit. As per Ext. A5 series, the Tribunal observed that a perusal of Ext. A5 series would show that the name of Mukundan does find a place in those receipts. The appellants failed to produce ledger copy of the account which would prove the receipt of daily deposit in the account of Mukundan. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not taking Ext. A5 series for consideration to prove the monthly income of the deceased. PW. 3 also stated