Point of Law: Deduction towards personal expenses of person is to be calculated by determining amount deceased is likely to spend on himself during his lifetime.

JUDGMENT:

[MACA No.51/2019 & CO No. 52/2019]

..

This appeal is submitted by the appellant 3rd respondent -Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in OP(MV) No.2000/2015. The aforesaid claim petition was submitted by the respondents herein seeking compensation for the death of one Shameer, in a motor accident that occurred on 14.10.2015. The deceased was the husband of the 1st respondent, the father of the 2nd respondent and the son of respondents 3 and 4.

2. The accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased was hit by a KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KL-15 S 9446 driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a Scaffold worker under one Musthafa with a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-. The total amount of compensation claimed was Rs.20 lakhs.

3. The owner and driver of the vehicle filed a written statement disputing the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. The quantum of compensation was also disputed. It was also contended that the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy at the relevant time, issued by the appellant herein and therefore, if at all there is any liability, that has to be indemnified by the appellant herein. The appellant filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy in respect of the vehicle but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also disputed. The negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in the claim petition was also disputed.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked from the side of the claimants. From the side of the appellant/3rd respondent, Ext.B1 was marked. After the trial, the tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent in the claim petition and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the appellant was held responsible for paying the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.36,00,040/-, and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount along with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. This appeal is filed by the appellant/3rd respondent, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. The claimants have filed a cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Smt. Latha Susan Cherian, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Pratheesh P., the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/cross objectors.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant specifically raised the contention that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency is on the higher side. It was pointed out that even though the respondents claimed that the deceased was working with a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-, no reliable evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. Even though PW1 was examined, claiming to be the employer of the deceased and produced Ext.A11 salary certificate, the tribunal rejected the said certificate. However, despite such rejection, the tribunal fixed monthly income as Rs.16,220/-without any supporting materials, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the said contentions.

7. I have carefully gone through the records. It is discernible from the observations made in the award that, as per the deposition of PW1, the employer of the deceased, he used to pay an amount of Rs.700/-per day for 14 days in a month towards the salary of the deceased. However, the tribunal noted that even though the deceased had been working with him for the past six years, no documents were produced to show the remittance of any amount towards the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Board. It was in that circumstances, Ext.A11 was rejected by the tribunal and proceeded to de