ACHUTHAN Vs. SUNIL PADURANG KHEDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against award dated 29.11.2011 in O.P. (MV).No.650/2011 on the files of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of one Ajeesh who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.10.2010. He was riding a motor cycle on that fateful day and at about 6.15 a.m when he reached Chakkorathukulam in Puthiyanirathu -Kozhikode Road, the offending vehicle viz., a truck bearing Reg.No.MH -12 -CH -9396 dashed against his motorcycle and consequently, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day itself. The appellants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ - and considering the evidence on record and appreciating the rival contentions, the Tribunal passed an award for an amount of Rs.5,91,500/ -. The Tribunal did not consider the 4th appellant/4th petitioner as a dependent of the deceased and the amount awarded was directed to be divided among the other appellants equally after deducting, the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' viz., Rs.10,000/ - and that amount was directed to be paid to the 3rd appellant viz., to the widow. Despite such directions, no challenge was made against such directions in this appeal. It is feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that this appeal has been preferred seeking its enhancement.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. There is no dispute with respect to the accident, insurance policy coverage of the offending vehicle and also the cause of the accident as the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck viz., the second respondent. In such circumstances, the only point to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to get enhancement of compensation as claimed.

(3.) Various contentions have been raised by the appellant to mount challenge against the impugned award. It is contended that in the claim petition it was specifically stated that the deceased Ajeesh was the Customer Support Executive in M/s. Ganson Telecom and that, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.7,900/ -. The contention of the appellants is that despite such specific averments, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased Ajeesh notionally at Rs.4,000/ - for the purpose of computing compensation payable under the head loss of dependency. That apart, it is contended that the Tribunal went wrong in deducting of the income towards personal expenses while computing the compensation under the said head. It is also contended that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others [(2013) 9 SCC 54], though the third appellant was entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ - towards loss of consortium, only an amount of Rs.10,000/ - was granted by the Tribunal. It is further contended that though in the light of the decision in Rajesh's case, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.25,000/ - towards funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs.5,000/ - was granted. The compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection is also too meager in the light of the said decision, it is further contended. Towards damage to clothing and articles, though an amount of Rs.2,000/ - was claimed, only an amount of Rs.500/ - was granted. In such circumstances, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the amount of compensation granted under each of the aforesaid heads is liable to be enhanced.