THRESSIAMMA SEBASTIAN Vs. SHOJI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the death of the husband of the appellant herein is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, preferred for enhancement of the compensation. The accident was on 13.6.2006. The husband of the appellant was travelling as a passenger in a jeep bearing registration No. RJ -20 -P/2743 and when the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, a truck bearing registration No. RSH -3387 driven, owned and insured by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal dashed against the jeep causing fatal injuries, leading to the death of husband of the appellant and causing injuries to others. The loss caused in this regard was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition before the Tribunal by the appellant joining hands with the daughters and son, who in turn have been transposed as respondents in this appeal (for the reason that they were not readily available in station, as put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant). It is also stated that there is no conflict of interest between the appellant and the other claimants.

(2.) The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consist of Exts.A1 to A17 produced and marked from the part of the claimants. The respondents chose to produce Exts.B1(a) to B1(g) and Ext. B2. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was solely on the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and proceeded to fix the compensation accordingly.

(3.) Coming to the quantum of compensation payable, the specific case put forth before the Tribunal was that the deceased was having a permanent employment in the Kanakkary Co -operative Bank Ltd., Kheroli, in Kottayam District and was drawing a monthly income of Rs. 8,802/ -. This was sought to be substantiated by producing a salary certificate issued by the employer bank, which was marked as Ext. A12. The claim was contested by the respondent insurance company alone and the owner and driver of the vehicle were declared ex -parte: The insurer contended that, the 'take home pay' of the deceased was on a much lower level as disclosed from the acquittance roll issued from the bank, which was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal simply ignored the salary certificate stating that the same was not properly proved, however, choosing to place reliance on the acquittance roll, reckoned only Rs. 3739/ - as the 'take home pay' after deduction of Rs. 5608/ -, that too, after deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses. It was accordingly that the annual dependency was worked out as Rs. 44,868/ -. Based on the age of the deceased as 48 years, the appropriate multiplier was fixed as '13', and thus the loss of dependency worked out as Rs. 5,83,184/ -. Adding amounts under different heads, the total compensation payable Was fixed as Rs. 6,63,409/ - which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7.5% from 5.5.2011, the date of petition, till the realisation, plus cost. This is sought to be enhanced at the instance of the appellant herein.