HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd. is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 15/10/2009 in O.P.(MV)No.619 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Anto Joseph. Anto Joseph aged 26 died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 28/4/2008. When the deceased was riding the motor cycle, the offending car driven by the 1st respondent in the original petition hit the motor cycle and as a result the deceased sustained fatal injuries. On 6/5/2008 he succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim permitting the claimants to realise ₹3,65,450/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 19/8/2008 till realisatioin and with cost of ₹5,000/- from the respondent in the Original Petition.
M.A.C.A.No.577 of 2010 & Cross Obj.No.35 of 2010 2
2. The case of the claimant is that the deceased Anto Joseph was earning a monthly income of ₹11,000/- after deducting all his expenditure. The claimant did not adduce any evidence as regards the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed monthly income at ₹8,000/-. The deceased is a bachelor and therefore half of the amount of the monthly income has been deducted for his personal expenses and annual dependency is taken as ₹48,000/-. The multiplier of 5 applied is that of the first applicant/father, who was aged 66 years at the time of the accident. Thus towards the loss of dependency the Tribunal found that the claimants are entitled to an amount of ₹2,40,000/-.
3. It is not in controversy that the deceased is an Ayurvedic massager and worked as proprietor of M/s.Kongattu Products. The extent of dependency is shown as ₹9,000/- in the petition. The Tribunal instead of applying the multiplier of the deceased, applied the multiplier applicable to the father, M.A.C.A.No.577 of 2010 & Cross Obj.No.35 of 2010 3 who was aged 66 years. Moreover, no amount was granted by the Tribunal for future prospects. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the modest estimate of the Tribunal fixing the monthly income as ₹8,000/-. We do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’.
4. The quantum of compensation awarded is challenged by the claimants in the Cross Objection.
5. We have examined the compensation awarded under each head. We find that the Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads in a reasonable manner. We find that no sustainable grounds are before us for interference.
In the result, both the appeal and Cross Objection are dismissed. No order as to costs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE skj ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE