Legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased, as personal claims survive under the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1977.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.)No.1015/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, are the appellants herein. The respondents in the O.P. are the respondents herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The petitioners 2 to 5 are the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased original petitioner. The original petition was filed claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.2.2009. According to them, on 16.2.2009 at 5.30 p.m, the Mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-11/2732 driven by the 1 ^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner overturned into a canal, resulting in injuries to the late petitioner, who was working as the clearner in the said vehicle. He succumbed to the injrues on 7.9.2009.

3. The 1 ^st respondent is the driver-cum-registered owner and the 2 ^nd respondent is the insurer of the lorry. According to the the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the mini lorry. Therefore, they filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.23,41,000/- limited to 15,00,000/-.

4. The 1 ^st respondent remained ex-parte. The 2^nd respondent filed a written statement, admitting the policy and disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. No oral evidence is adduced by either side. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12 and B1.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,78,929/-

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

9. Heard Smt.Anupama Johny, the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and the learned Standing Counsel Smt.Latha Susan Cherian.

10. The Point: In this case the accident and valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. Though in the written statement the 2 ^nd respondent has contended that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the 1 ^st respondent, at the time of arguments such a contention was not taken. The petitioners produced Ext.A4, copy of the charge sheet involved in the crime registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, in respect to the above accident. In the light of the above charge sheet, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle stands proved. Therefore, the 2 ^nd respondent, being the insurer, is liable to indemnify the compensation, which is liable to be awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle.

11. The incident was on 16.2.2009. The appellants claimed that being a cleaner in the lorry, the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.5000/- However, they could not prove the said claim, by adducing evidence. Therefore, by virtue of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [(2011) 13 SCC 236], his notional income is liable to be fixed at Rs.7000/-.

12. Since, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years, 25% of his income is to be added towards future prospects, and the multiplier to be applied is 15, in the light of the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680].

13. The deceased being married and having 4 dependants, deduction towards his personal and living expense is 1/4 of his income , in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC