JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the claimants in OP(MV) No.335 of

2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads.

2. The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Jayanandan, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident occured on 24.12.2015. He was traveling in KL-08/BG-5788 car driven by the 1st respondent through Thrissur-Chalakudy National Highway. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, it dashed against the divider and the accident occured. Sri.Jayanandan sustained serious injuries and he was rushed to hospital. But he succumbed to the injuries on 26.12.2015.

3. The appellants are the wife and sister of the deceased. They filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of claimants.

The Tribunal awarded only Rs.11,36,000/-.

4. The accident and death of Sri.Jayanandan are not disputed. The

3rd respondent Insurance Company is admitting the Policy, which was valid at the time of accident.

5. Now let us see whether there was any illegality or impropriety in the award passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with it.

6. According to the appellants, the Tribunal ought to have found that the deceased was a 29 years old Plumber, earning monthly income of Rs.20,000/-, but his monthly income was unilaterally fixed at Rs.7,000/-, which was too meager and inadequate. The amounts awarded towards ‘pain and suffering’, ‘loss of estate’ etc. were also on the lower side.

7. Learned counsel Sri.Sheji P. Abraham, appearing for the appellants, submitted that even though there was no Salary Certificate to prove the income of the deceased as a Plumber, even going by the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951] his monthly income could have been taken as Rs.10,000/- per month that submission is not opposed by the 3rd respondent. The Postmortem Certificate showed his age as 36. So, he was a 36 year old Plumber and he was eligible for future prospects at 40%. So his monthly income could have been fixed at Rs.14,000/-. Since he was a bachelor by deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, for calculating loss of dependency, his income could have been taken at Rs.7,000/-. The multiplier applicable is 15 as he was aged 36. So the ‘loss of dependency’ can be assessed as Rs.12,60,000/-(Rs.7000X12X15). The Tribunal already awarded Rs.9,45,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. So the claimants are entitled to get the balance Rs.3,15,000/- towards ‘compensation for loss of dependency’ (12,60,000-9,45,000).

8. Towards ‘funeral expenses’, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- but going by the National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680], they were eligible to get only Rs.15,000/- so Rs.10,000/- is to be deducted from the amount awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

9. Towards ‘loss of love and affection’, the claimants were awarded Rs.1,00,000/- in total. Going by Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra), they were eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each and so the excess amount of Rs.20,000/-

awarded under that head has to be deducted.

10. Towards, ‘loss of estate’ Rs.10,000/- only was awarded. Going by the decision cited (supra), they were eligible to get Rs.15,000/- and so they will get the difference of Rs.5,000/- in addition. The compensation awarded under other heads seems to be reasonable and hence need no interference.

11. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- [(3,15,000/- +5000)-(20,000 +10,000)].

12. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank accounts of appellants 1 and 2 in the proportion 70:30 with interest @9% from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period