BY AD vs SRI.REJI GEORGE

BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY SRI.BINOY DAVIS SRI.R.P.SREENIVASAN M.A.C.A No.698 of 2018 2 RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. JASEELA COMPLEX, BYPASS JUCTION, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV SMT.A.SREEKALA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A No.698 of 2018 3 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in O.P. (M.V.)No. 533/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of Sri.Manoj N.K., who died in a motor accident that occurred on

25.07.2015.

2. The case of the petitioners is that on 25.07.2015, at 8.30 A.M., while Manoj, the deceased in this case was riding a motorcycle bearing registration number KL-57-D-6216 along Kozhikode - Palakkad National Highway and when he reached near Pengad road junction, a bus bearing registration No. KL-58-D-4720 owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle ridden by Manoj. Due to the impact of the hit, Manoj was thrown onto the road and sustained severe injuries. Immediately, after the accident, though the injured was rushed to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode he succumbed to the injuries while M.A.C.A No.698 of 2018 4 undergoing treatment.

3. The driver and owner of the offending bus were arrayed as 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, whereas the insurer of the bus was arrayed as the 3rd respondent.

4. The 3rd respondent resisted the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting the Insurance coverage for the bus involved in the accident. The petitioners’ evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A12. From the side of the respondent, no evidence, whatsoever, was produced.

5. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. KL-58-D-4720 by the first respondent, and being the insurer, the third respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The amount of compensation was quantified at Rs. 10,79,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the petitioners have M.A.C.A No.698 of 2018 5 come up with this appeal.

6. Heard Sri.Reji George, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Smt. A. Sreekala, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager, particularly the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. According to the counsel, the Tribunal totally erred in assessing the income of the deceased reasonable and resultantly awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the said head. Apart from taking such a contention, from the side of the appellants, a petition was filed as I.A. No. 1191/2018 to receive additional evidence at the appellate stage. According to the counsel, at the time of the accident, the deceased was working in UAE and earning a monthly income of Rs. 41,000/- per month. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though a salary certificate issued by the employer in Dubai was produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was not inclined to accept the said M.A.C.A No.698 of 2018 6 salary certificate by assigning a reason that the same was not a one attested by the Indian Embassy.

8. In order to undo the said grievance, the present I.A. No1191/2018 (2/2018) has been filed, and produced the attested copy of the salary certificate issued by the employer in UAE. I heard the learned counsel on both sides on the question of allowing the said I.A. and receiving the said additional document in evidence. The learned counsel would submit that if the additional document pressed into service from the side of the petitioners is not accepted in evidence, it would work out injustice. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company would submit that without examining the employer, the salary certificate produced cannot be accepted in evidence. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that the salary certificate pressed into service from the side of the petitioners is not attested as per the existing protocol. I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company is not sustainable. It cannot go unnoticed that while considering a petition filed M.A.C.A No.698 of 2018 7 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, strict proof of evidence is not required. The standard of proof required to prove a fact in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not as stringent as the standard of proof required in a criminal case. The Tribunal can very well rely on preponderance of probabilities. Here, along with the I.A., petitioners have produced an attested copy of the salary certificate issued by the employer. I find no reason to decline to receive the said document in evidence. In the interest of justice, the said document has to be received in evidence. Therefore, I am inclined to allow I.A. No.1191/2018 and the additional documents produced along with the said I.A. is marked in evidence at this appellate stage as Ext.A13.

9. A perusal of Ext. A13 shows that the deceased was an unskilled labourer and he was working as a cleaning staff in UAE. The salary noted in Ext.A13 is Rs.41,000/-. Of course, the salary noted in the certificate appears to be exorbitant when considered in the background that the deceased was employed as a cleaning staff in Dubai. M.A.C.A No.698 of 2018 8 Therefore, I am of the view that the income of the deceased can reasonably be assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per month.

10. The deceased was aged 43 at the time of the accident. In view of the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662], an addition of 25% has to be made to the actual income towards his future prospects. After making such an addition, the monthly income of the deceased will come to Rs. 37,500/-. As the deceased was aged 43 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier, as per the principle in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], to be reckoned is 14. In the result, the petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 63,00,000/- [Rs. 37,500/- x 12 x 14] as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. As the total number of dependents is four, ¼th of the said income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting the said amount, the petitioners are found entitled to get an amount of Rs. 47,25,000/- (Rs.63,00,000 – Rs. 15,75,000) as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Already an amount of M.A.C.A No.698 of 2018 9 Rs.8,19,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioners are entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 39,06,000/- (47,25,000 - 8,19,000) as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The compensation awarded under other various heads appears to be reasonable and hence, warrants no interference. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.39,06,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Six Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- JOBIN SEBASTIAN JUDGE DCS