BEEPATHU Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in OP(MV) 646/2010 are the appellants herein, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded. The claim was with respect to the death of a person named Abdul Rafeeq, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 10.9.2009. The accident occurred when a lorry hit against the car which was driven by the person who died in the accident. The appellants/claimants are the mother, wife and two minor children of the deceased. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,10,000/-. According to the appellants the amount of compensation awarded under various heads are too inadequate and disproportionate.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) It is mainly contended that the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- adopted by the tribunal for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency, is inadequate and unrealistic. According to learned counsel for the appellants, sufficient evidence was adduced before the tribunal to prove that the deceased was residing abroad and was earning considerable income. On a perusal of the impugned award, we noticed that Ext.A15 is the copy of the passport and Ext.A21 is the copy of the employment agreement of the deceased. The tribunal found that Ext.A21 is an agreement executed as early as on 8.9.2004 and the contents thereof would indicate that the deceased was under a probation period of three months, during the year 2004. The tribunal noticed that Ext.A21 copy of the agreement was not attested by the Embassy. The tribunal further noticed that the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was running an electrical shop in UAE, which is contrary to the fact evidenced from Ext.A21. However, the tribunal noticed that Ext.A15 passport contains endorsement with respect to visa held by the deceased. Taking note of the above said evidence, the tribunal had arrived at a finding that there is no clear proof regarding the income of the deceased and that there is nothing to show that he was on permanent employment in UAE. Relying on a decision in Valsamma v. Binu Jose, 2014 1 KerLT 10 the tribunal observed that it is not safe to rely on the income with respect to a person who is not permanently employed. Therefore the tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month with an addition of 50% towards future prospects for the purpose of computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency.