MAHILAMANI Vs. K V SHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife and son, legal heirs, of the deceased in an accident were before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [for brevity "Tribunal"]. The award passed by the Tribunal is challenged in appeal claiming enhanced compensation. The enhancement of compensation is specifically claimed with respect to the income as determined notionally by the Tribunal and also the transportation and funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The learned Counsel for the appellants relies on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236.

(2.) Ramachandrappa is relied upon to contend that the notional income taken by the Tribunal is very low. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was a businessman conducting automobile workshop and steel fabrication work at Riyad, Saudi Arabia. The monthly income was claimed to be Rs.30, 000/- [Rupees thirty thousand]. It is also seen from the Tribunal's order that the deceased was a pensioner. To a specific query by this Court as to whether there is any document produced indicating the pension that was received by the deceased, the learned Counsel answered in the negative. However, on further reading of the award of the Tribunal, this Court found a Pension Payment Book produced, marked as Exhibit A8. Hence, this Court called for the lower Court records and on examination, it is found that Exhibit A8 was the Pension Payment Book of the 1st claimant, the wife of the deceased. It is unfortunate that neither the Tribunal noticed it, nor the Counsel for the claimants. This Court would have proceeded on the basis that the deceased was a pensioner; in which event there could be no presumption that a pensioner would continue to work even after his retirement, without contra evidence. There is no evidence produced as to the employment claimed or the income received.

(3.) Be that as it may, since the deceased was not a pensioner and being aged 56, it could be reasonably assumed that he was gainfully employed. The accident occurred in 2003 and even in the case of a coolie the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa, in the very same period in which the accident in this case occurred, took the notional income as Rs.4, 500/-. In such circumstance, it is safe to assume that the deceased was also earning Rs.5, 000/- [Rupees five thousand] at the time of his death. In deciding the loss of dependency the future prospects also have to be taken into consideration. As found in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 5 KHC 350, 10% addition has to be made to the wages for future prospects, when the deceased is self employed and within the age bracket of 50-60. The wages then would be Rs.5, 500/- [Rupees five thousand and five hundred]. An amount of Rs.1, 833/- [Rupees one thousand eight hundred and thirty three] would be deducted for personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be recomputed as 3, 667 x 12 x 8 = Rs.3, 52, 032/- [Rupees three lakhs, fifty two thousand and thirty two].