Sijumol, Velammattu House, Ayarkunnam, Aathira, Velammattu House, Ayarkunnam Represented By Next Friend Mother Sijumol, Velammattu House Ayarkunnam and Thankappan, Velammattu House, Ayarkunnam vs Markose Mar Curilose, Ramanthara House, Pangada P.O., Pampady Kottayam, K.A. Mathaias and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kottayam

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The appellants are the widow, minor daughter and aged father of a 35 year old salesman in a toddy shop by name Baiju who met with his death in a road traffic accident occurred on 06/10/02. Allegedly while he was riding his scooter he was hit down by a car driven by the second respondent. Against the claim of Rs. 10 lakhs, the learned Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 5,02,667/- together with interest after deducting 15% finding that the deceased was drunk at the time of the accident. However, the learned Tribunal has found that the negligence was on the second respondent who was driving the vehicle. As the third respondent admitted the policy of the offending vehicle, they were directed to pay the compensation. In this case the appellants are challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded to them.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company. The impugned award was also perused.

The appellants claim that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/- on the basis of Ext.A7. Ext.A7 was not put to proof. However, the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/-. We see that the accident was in the year 2002. Considering the age of the deceased and the year in which the accident had occurred, we are of the view that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is justifiable and we see no reason to interfere with the same.

The learned Tribunal has adopted the correct multiplier and has made proper deductions and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,11,872/- as compensation for loss of dependency. The same does not call for an interference by us.

However, going through the other heads, we see adequate compensation has not been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The first appellant, the widow was aged 28 years at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the first appellant. We award to the first appellant an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- on that count.

Towards funeral expenses only a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded and we award to the appellant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- more under that head.

We are not inclined to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads.

However, we notice that though there was no finding regarding any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the learned Tribunal deducted 15% of the amount arrived at for the reason that the deceased was drunk at the time of the accident as evidenced from the postmortem certificate. But there is no convincing evidence to show that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol while riding the scooter. The charge was against the second respondent. Considering all these aspects into account, we are of the view that deduction of 15% from the amount of compensation arrived at is improper and the same has to go. The impugned award is interfered with in that respect. We hold that the appellants are entitled to get full amount of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal (ie. Rs. 5,91,373/- plus the amount of Rs. 12,000/- which was additionally awarded by us as per this judgment). The entire amount awarded ( Rs. 6,03,373/-) shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.