IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA No. 344 of 2002(B) 1. SALI, W/O. LATE CHACKO, Petitioner 2. BINDU, D/O. LATE CHACKO (MINOR). 3. TWINS, S/O. -DO- -DO- Vs 1. PAULMANI, S/O. M.KARUPPIAH, Respondent 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., 3. DEVASIA, S/O. THOMAS, For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) For Respondent :SMT.P.A.REZIYA The Hon'ble MR. Justice [ENTITY] The Hon'ble MR. Justice [ENTITY] Dated :25/07/2007 O R D E R
[ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ.
M.F.A. No.344 of 2002
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2007 Judgment [ENTITY], J.
A 28 year old driver died in a motor accident. His dependents filed application for compensation claiming that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep bearing registration No.KL/10A 3606. Deceased was driving jeep bearing registration No.KEF 7115. The offending jeep was insured by the second respondent insurance company. Even though claim was filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], since it was claimed that he was getting an income of Rs.3,500/- per month, tribunal correctly found that it was not a case where compensation can be granted under [SECTION]. Therefore, evidence was allowed to be adduced by both sides. From the evidence adduced, the tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep insured by the second respondent insurance company. However, against a claim of Rs.4,37,667/=, only Rs.2,77,000/= was awarded by the tribunal. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal.
2. Finding of negligence, consideration of application under [SECTION], liability of the insurance company etc. have become final as no appeal is filed against the same by any of the respondents. According to the claimants, deceased was getting Rs.3,500/- per month. The tribunal did not accept the same in the absence of evidence. Tribunal found that as a professional driver, he would have got at least Rs.100/= per day as the accident occurred on 28.5.1998 and he would have got 25 days' work in a month. Therefore, Rs.2,500/- can be taken as the monthly income out of which one-third can be deducted for loss of dependency. We see no ground to enhance the monthly income assessed by the tribunal in the absence of any other data.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that tribunal has taken only 13 as the multiplier. The deceased was aged 37 at the time of death. He left behind three children apart from the aged father. The elder child was aged only five years and the second child was aged 3 at the time of accident. It is the case of the appellant s that age of the claimants also should be looked into while considering the age of the deceased for calculating compensation of a victim aged 37 years. Under the second schedule, apt multiplier is 16 for a motor accident victim aged 35 and 40. A three member bench of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], held that the second schedule of the [ACT] is framed for the purpose of awarding compensation under [SECTION], but, it serves as a guideline for determination of compensation under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Since the victim of the accident in that case was aged 32, considering the second schedule, Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted 17 as the multiplier. In [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court held that, except in very rare cases, multiplier system should not be deviated from. The other methods, which were in vogue prior to the introduction of the multiplier system, were held to be no more good system. It was further held that normally the multiplier, as indicated in the second schedule, should be applied. Though the second schedule is found to be a safe guide for the purpose of calculation of the amount of compensation, in special circumstances, it can be varied. In that case, it was also held that if the multiplicand is very high, a lesser multiplier can be taken. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and another 2003) 3 SCC
148), it was held that structured formula mentioned in the second schedule gives guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Deviation from the structured formula can be resorted to only in exceptional cases and ordinarily the above multiplier system should be followed.
3. It is contended that since life span of people has been increased, a much higher multiplier is to be taken. Considering the age of the motor accident victim 16 can be taken as the multiplier. If that be so, compensation payable will be Rs.2500 x 12 x 16 x 2 = Rs.3,20,000/-. Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of dependency at Rs.2,60,000/=. Therefore, claimants will be entitled to Rs.60,000/= more. The above amount of Rs.60,000/- should be deposited by the second respondent insurance company with 7% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the above amount, Rs.20,000/= can be disbursed to the first appellant and Rs.5,000/= shall be disbursed to the fourth appellant. Balance including the entire interest should be deposited in equal proportion in the name of appellants Nos.2 and 3 and second appellant is allowed to withdraw the same at the time of her marriage and third appellant is allowed to withdraw the same when he attains the age of 20.
The appeal is allowed partly.
[ENTITY] JUDGE [ENTITY] JUDGE vaa [ENTITY] AND [ENTITY], JJ.
JUDGMENT Dated:25th July, 2007