SULOCHAN Vs. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant and the insurer have come up with these appeals challenging the award in O.P. (MV) No. 1732/92 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The appellants in M.F.A. No. 288/97 seek enhancement of compensation. The appellant in M.F.A. No. 1518/96, insurer, attempts to avoid the liability contending that the driver did not have an effective driving licence on the date of the accident namely, 26.5.1992. Therefore, this is violation of policy condition as contained in S.149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. First of all we will consider the appeal by the Claimants.

(2.) The accident resulted in death of the husband of the 1st appellant in M.F.A. No. 288/97. He was a carpenter. According to PW.1, wife of the deceased, he had a daily wage of Rs.70/- and was getting altogether a monthly remuneration of Rs.1,800/-. He had worked on all days except on Sundays. There was no contra - evidence refuting this. Inspite of that the Tribunal had adopted only Rs.750/- as the dependency portion to compute compensation. This is too low, counsel contends.

(3.) The evidence of Pw.1 indicates that the deceased earned Rs.1,800/- per month. Being a carpenter, it is probable that one should get at least Rs.60/- per day of work during the relevant period. In such circumstances, when 25 days work per month is assumed, the monthly earning of the worker will be Rs. 1,500 towards wages. Being a manual labour, necessarily, 1/3rd of the same should have been set apart for his personal expenditure. Consequently, the dependency portion shall be Rs.1,000/-. On the basis of the evidence on record, instead of Rs.750/-, the Tribunal ought to have taken that much as the dependency portion.