JUDGMENT

[MACA Nos.355/2013, 811/2013]

Both these appeals arise from the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(MAC) No.704/2011. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants in M.A.C.A. No.811/2013 seeking compensation for the death of one Ummu Subaida K. due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 10.06.2011. The original claimants were the husband, three children and the mother of the deceased. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals are referred to based on their respective ranks in the claim petition.

2. According to the claimants, the accident occurred when a stage carriage in which the deceased was travelling went off the road and fell into a paddy field due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent owned the vehicle and it was insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased was an Associate Professor in an aided institution at Tirurangadi with a monthly income of Rs.81,648/-. She was 49 years old at the time of the accident. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking compensation.

3. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company alone contested the matter by filing a written statement, wherein they admitted the coverage of policy with respect to the said vehicle but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed by them. The said claim petition was tried along with O.P.(M.V.)

No.703/2011, which arose from the very same accident.

4. The evidence in these claim petitions consists of Ext.A1 to A30 from the side of the claimants. The disability certificate in O.P.(M.A.C) No.703/2011 was marked as Ext.C1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in driving the bus. Being the insurer of the said vehicle, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.81,81,736/-. The said amount was directed to be deposited along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company filed M.A.C.A. No.355/2013, whereas seeking enhancement of compensation, M.A.C.A. No.811/2013 was filed by the claimants.

5. Heard Sri.K.K. Mohamed Ravuf, learned counsel appearing fort the claimants and Sri.George Cherian (Thiruvalla), learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.

6. Before going to the merits of the case, a crucial aspect to be noticed is that, earlier, both these appeals were disposed of by this Court as per a common judgment dated 17.09.2020. As per the said judgment, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal has been reduced and refixed as Rs.76,98,145/-. However, the review petitions submitted by the claimants were submitted in both the said appeals, highlighting that, at the time of disposing of these appeals, the 2nd claimant was no more and therefore, this Court passed the judgment with a dead person in the party array. Those review petitions were allowed by this Court, as per a common judgment dated 29.09.2022, by which both the judgments were recalled, and the appeals were restored into the file. These appeals are now being heard afresh in the light of such order of recalling of the judgments.

7. After the disposal of review petitions, the additional

6th and 7th respondents were impleaded as the legal representatives of the 2nd claimant in both these appeals. 8. The main contest from either side is in relation to the quantum of compensation. Among the various heads, the serious dispute relates to the amount under the head of loss of dependency. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that, as this Court has already quantified the compensation in the common judgment which was already recalled and such