HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Against the Award passed in O. P. (MV) No. 1656 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claimants filed this appeal. The appellants herein are the dependents of deceased V.I. Joseph who died, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16th August 1992. On 16th August 1952, while the deceased V. I. Joseph was travelling as pillion rider or a motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-7B/2644 driven by the first respondent through Cbalakudy-Angamaly N.H. Road and when they reached at Karayamparambu, lorry bearing registration No. MDM-799 driven by the 4th respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle and there by the deceased sustained serious injuries. The injured succumbed to the injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in L.F. Hospital. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicles. At the time of accident, the second respondent was the owner of the motor cycle and it was having valid insurance policy with the third respondent. The 4th respondent was the driver of the lorry and 5th respondent was the owner and 6th respondent was the insurance company which insured the lorry. The respondents arc jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants for the death of deceased V. I. Joseph. At the time of accident, the deceased was a practising lawyer, aged about 36 and having a monthly income of Rs. 4,000. He was a bachelor and claimants are the dependents of the deceased. An amount of Rs. 7,50,000 was claimed by them as compensation. Respondents 7 and 8 are brothers, the first appellant is the mother and appellants 2 and 3 are his unman led elder sisters. On the side of the claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A-l to A-9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, Ext. B-l was marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents.
(2.) The Tribunal after considering the evidence passed an award allowing the claimants to realise a compensation of Rs. 1,17,500 with interest '' and respondents 1 to 3 were made jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
(3.) No appeal or cross objection is filed by the respondents. Now the claimants challenge the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that deceased Joseph was a practising lawyer. The monthly income of the deceased was stated as Rs. 4,000. To prove the income of the deceased, P.W. 1, the Senior Advocate of the deceased was examined. His evidence shows that the deceased Joseph was his junior Advocate. He was practising from 1991 onwards as an independent lawyer and he was a premising Advocate and having a monthly income of Rs. 4,500. The court below did not accept the evidence solely on the ground that no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants. It is not possible to produce any documentary evidence unless the Advocate fee is received on receipts. Presumably, there is no such practice also. But the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500 As per Ext. A-9, SSLC Book of the deceased, he was 37 years old at the time of death.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.