Point of Law: Compensation constitutes part of estate of deceased and as a result, legal representative of deceased would inherit estate even if he was not dependent on deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Since both the appeals arise from the award dated 03.08.2015 in O.P. (M.V) No.936/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. M.A.C.A No.535 of 2016 is preferred by the 3rd respondent insurance company contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. M.A.C.A No. 3849 of 2016 is filed by petitioners 2 and 3 aggrieved by the ratio of apportionment of compensation among the petitioners.

3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Krishnankutty who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.12.2005. The deceased Krishnankutty was in the service of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) at the time of the accident. The 1st petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased in his divorced wife. According to the petitioners, on 28.12.2005, while the deceased was travelling along the NH 47 from Thrissur to Palakkad in a car owned by the KPSC, a lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-23-AA-9400 owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent, hit against the car causing fatal injuries to him and he succumbed to the injuries. Initially, the original petition was filed claiming an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for the death of the deceased. Later, the amounts claimed under different heads were amended and the total claim was enhanced to Rs. 40 lakhs. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. No relief is claimed against respondents 4 and 5, the Secretary, KPSC, the registered owner and the insurer, of the car.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 5 were set ex parte. The 1st petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A13 documents were marked from her side.

5. The 3rd respondent filed written statement contending that the 1st petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of deceased and is not entitled to get any compensation as claimed for. Though they admitted that the lorry was covered by a valid policy of insurance, it was contended that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant. They also disputed the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased.

6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the deposition of PW1 and taking into account Ext.A8 marriage Certificate and Ext.A12 legal heirship certificate, held that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased in his divorced wife and being the legal heirs, they are entitled to claim compensation.

7. The Tribunal found that the deceased was above 54 years of age at the relevant time and took the multiplier as 11'. Relying on Ext.A11 salary certificate issued from KPSC, the gross monthly salary of the deceased was taken as Rs.36,288/-. After deducting 20% towards income tax, the monthly income was taken as Rs.29,030/-. The Tribunal found that petitioners 2 and 3 are not the dependents of the deceased and held the 1st petitioner alone as the dependent and deducted 1/3rd of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Based on the above factors, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency as Rs.25,54,640/-[29030×12×11×2/3]. Towards loss of consortium, the 1st petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Under the heads funeral expenses and loss of love and affection, the petitioners were awarded Rs.25,000/-each. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.26,89,640/-(rounded to Rs.26,90,000/-) with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. The split up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is as follows: