MANI AND ORS. Vs. JOBY JOHN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the appellant is two fold; firstly that the Tribunal has gone wrong in exonerating the Insurance Company and secondly, that the quantum awarded in respect of the death of a person aged 28 years is much on the lower side. The sequence of events narrated in the appeal shows that there occurred an accident on 01/12/2002, when the lorry bearing No. KL -10B/4604 owned and driven by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent capsized on the road resulting in serious injuries to the deceased, leading to his death on the same day. The case projected by the claimants, who are the parents and siblings of the deceased, was that on the date of accident, the deceased was returning along with the goods carried in the lorry bearing No. KL -10B/4604 and it was because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver, that the accident had occurred.

(2.) The owner -cum -driver of the vehicle chose to remain ex parte. The matter was contested by the Insurance Company mainly contending that though there was a valid policy, there was no liability for the Insurance Company to satisfy the risk in respect of the person who was travelling in the goods carriage. But the version of the claimants was that the deceased was travelling in the lorry in his capacity as the owner accompanying the goods. It was also contended that, the deceased was working as a TV/Radio Technician earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - per month based on his qualifications in the field. In order to substantiate the facts and figures, Exts. A8, A9 and A10 certificates (National Trade Certificate issued by the NCVT, Government of Kerala, Provisional National Trade Certificate issued by the NCVT, Government of India and certificate issued from the National Institute of TV and VCR Technology, Kothamangalam) were produced. That apart, P.W. 1 was also examined, who was also travelling in the very same vehicle, though his name and particulars have not been mentioned in the appendix, where it is simply stated that witness on both sides 'nil'. The relevant portions of the deposition of the witnesses have been examined by the Tribunal in Paragraph No. 11. On going through the said version and also going through the lower Court records, particularly, Exts. A1 FI Statement and A3 scene mahazar, pieces of granite stones were very well available on the spot of occurrence. The specific place from where granite stones were procured was also deposed by P.W. 1. It was stated that he was requested by the deceased Manoj to accompany him for selecting designs of granite stones/dressed granite stones for constructing the residential building. The stage of construction was also deposed by the said witness and there is no effective cross examination in this regard. The version of the claimants was not satisfactorily rebutted by the respondents by adducing any evidence from their side; but for producing copy of policy and copy of the permit as Exts. B1 and B2. We find no reason to have discarded the evidence tendered by P.W. 1 and the version put forth by the claimants that the deceased was returning in the lorry bearing No. KL -10B/4604 accompanying his goods and this being the position, the finding to the contrary rendered by the Tribunal as if the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger is not liable to be accepted. It is ordered accordingly.

(3.) Going by the quantum of compensation payable, the Tribunal has reckoned only a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - as the monthly income. With reference to the age of the parents, appropriate multiplier was fixed as '13' granting a total amount of Rs. 2,60,052/ - as the compensation for the loss of death (i.e., 1667 x 12 x 13, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses). As discussed above, the claimants have produced Exts. A8 to A10 to show the qualifications of the deceased. This coupled with the deposition of P.W. 1 should have persuaded the Tribunal to have reckoned a higher notional monthly income. Considering the facts and figures and also considering the date of accident, we find it appropriate to reckon Rs. 4,000/ - as the notional monthly income for working out the compensation. Since the parents alone could be considered as the dependents, 50% could be deducted towards the probable personal expenses and the remaining 50% is to be considered as the contribution to the family. Similarly, we also find that the appropriate multiplier by virtue of the law settled, has to be based on the age of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged 28 years, we find it appropriate to reckon the multiplier as '17'. On reworking the figures towards loss of dependency, it comes to Rs. 4,08,000 (i.e., 4000 x 12 x 50/100 x 17). After giving credit to the sum of Rs. 2,60,052/ -, the balance comes to Rs. 1,47,948/ -. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other relevant heads as discussed in Paragraphs 16 to 22 are as given below: