Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. These appeals arise from two out of the three claim petitions filed, following a road traffic accident on 10.9.1999, as a result of which one Ramkumar died. O.P.(M.V).No.244 of 2000 was filed by the legal representatives of Ramkumar. His widow, Sudha Ramkumar who has also suffered injuries in the accident, claimed compensation for herself by filing O.P.(M.V). No.245 of 2000. O.P(M.V).No.246 of 2000 is filed by Sudha Ramkumar, claiming compensation for the loss to property (a maruthi van).
2. The Tribunal awarded different amounts and decided the original petitions in favour of the claimants.
3. These appeals by the insurer are from the award passed in the case of death and the award passed for property damages.
4. In so far as M.A.C.A.No.1529 of 2005 is concerned, the plea is that the monthly income fixed for determining the loss of dependency in the case of death is excessive. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents on this issue, we see that the court below has adopted extremely pragmatic approach and has relied on documentary evidence in relation to the person who died at the age of 58 and had earlier served as Managing Director of a public sector company in Kerala for 10 years and thereafter had his own two establishments and was also adviser in different other establishments. Documentary evidence reflected, among other things, his income. It also includes the documentary evidence regarding the returns filed subsequently by the wife, on behalf of the deceased. It would also include the income for the period within which he died. Having regard to the materials, we are of the view that the amount of Rs.12,000/-, fixed by the Tribunal is never excessive. We see no ground to interfere with the award in O.P (M.V) No.244 of 2000. M.A.C.A.No.1529 of 2005 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
5. As regards M.A.C.A.No.1532 of 2005, arising in the case of property damage, Exhibit A29 report by the loss surveyor fixed the value of the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.90,256/-. Sudha Ramkumar had deposed before the court below that she obtained Rs.30,000/- by sale of whatever remained in as is where is in condition. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation in that regard. We see that it is not excessive, calling for interference in an appeal by the insurer. That appeal also therefore fails.
In the result, these appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG