IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TH TUESDAY, THE 24 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 2ND ASWINA, 1946 MACA NO. 2422 OF 2012 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.06.2012 IN O.P (MV) NO.695 OF 2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT :-

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KARUNAGAPALLY NOW REP.BY ITS MANAGER, SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-5000002 BY ADVS.

SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :-

1 SHAMNA SHEREEF D/O.SUBAIDA BEEVI, PUTHEN VEEDU, THAZHATHCHERRI,KOOTIKKADA,ERAVIPURAM P.O,691320

2 KUMARI FATHIMA SHEREEF MINOR D/O.SHEREEF PUTHEN VEEDU, THAZHATHECHERRI,KOOTIKKADA, ERAVIPURAM P.O., 3 KUMARI SARA SHEREEFMINOR D/O.SHEFEEF, PUTHEN VEEDU, THAZHATHCHERRI,KOOTTIKKADA, ERAVIPURAM P.O THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent/insurance company in O.P (MV) No.695 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondents herein were the petitioners before the Tribunal.

2. The facts of the case is that, on 13.04.2009 at about 05.30 am, while the deceased was walking along Kollam – Thiruvananthapuram National Highway road, a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No.KL-23/A 4626 driven by the 1^st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/-.

3. The insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was adduced on the side of the petitioners. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the petitioner therein. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellant/2^nd respondent has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the monthly income taken by the tribunal as Rs.25,000/- is on the higher side. The learned standing counsel further submitted that he was working in Kuwait and has not adduced any proper evidence to prove his income. In Ext.A7 – salary certificate, the date is not mentioned nor it is attested by the Embassy. It is a fact that he was working abroad, which is not denied by the insurer. The deceased was aged 51 years at the time of the accident.

6. On a perusal of the account details produced as Ext.A8, it is seen that an amount of Rs.2,48,595/- was deposited on 07.07.2008 and a further amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was deposited on 23.03.2009. As of 04.12.2009, the balance amount was Rs.9,00,979.02/- in his account. It is a fact that there was no steady deposit of any amount in the account maintained with Federal Bank, Chathannoor Branch. On a perusal of the account statement, it is also seen that in a period of nine months, he had deposited Rs.9,00,000/- in his account.

7. The income of the deceased was claimed as Rs.40,000/-.

However, the tribunal, after considering the fact that he was working abroad and was a driver by profession, fixed his notional monthly income as Rs.25,000/-. It is a fact that the persons who are working abroad receive more salary than what is paid to the people in our country. The tribunal, after considering all these aspects, took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/-. The said amount appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, I do not find a