IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 732 of 2002 ---------------------------- OP(MV.) 982/1998, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM ................................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OP.(MV) --------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE OP(MV) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.A.GEORGE S/O. K.U.ABRAHAM, CHEMPAKASSERI VEEDU, T.C. 11/1695, CHARACHIRA, KOWDIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -3. 2. AMMINI GEORGE, W/O. C.A. GEORGE, DO. DO. 3. ABY GEORGE, S/O. C.A. GEORGE, DO. DO. 4. JOHNSON GEORGE, S/O. C.A.GEORGE,DO. DO. 5. A.JAMEELA BEEVI, W/O. SAINULABDEEN, SHAFI MANZIL, T.C.49/867, KONCHIRAVILA, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -9. 6. BINUKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, KONATHU VEEDU, MOTARATHALA, PANAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRIRAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 4330/2002 IN M.F.A NO. 732/2002 E. DISMISSED 11/03/2008. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. SD/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. True copy tga J.B.KOSHY & A.K.BASHEER, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.732 OF 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated 11th March, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant insurance company questions the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P. (M.V)No.982/1998 in this appeal. On 18.1.1998 one Viju George sustained fatal injuries and died when the motor cycle in which he was travelling as a pillion rider was hit by a private bus insured by the appellant insurance company. The deceased was a B.A Degree holder and completed post graduate Diploma in Computer Application. According to the claimants, the deceased was receiving Rs.7,500/= per month. Ext.A16 salary certificate shows that he was getting Rs.6,760/= to 7,040/= per month. But, considering the future prospects, Tribunal fixed Rs.13,100/= as the monthly income and then 14 was taken as the multiplier and awarded Rs.22,00,800/= for death and loss of dependency. Rs.15,000/= was awarded for love and affection, Rs.15,000/= towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/= towards loss of estate. Thus, total amount calculated was Rs.22,45,800/=, but, the claim was limited to Rs.15,00,000/=. It is contended by the insurance company that the amount awarded was exorbitantly high. The deceased was an unmarried person. Age of his father was 54 and mother was 51. It is well settled MFA.732/2002 2 law that for calculating compensation for the death of unmarried persons, multiplier should be taken considering the age of the claimants. Here, father was aged 54 and mother was 51. For the persons aged between 50 and 55, the apt multiplier is 11. The deceased has two brothers also. Merely because father and mother were well employed, it cannot be stated that the son will not support them whenever needed. Multiplier should be taken considering the age of the parents. Here, considering the age of the parents, 11 is the apt multiplier. Monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,760/=. Tribunal calculated compensation on the basis that he was actually getting Rs.13,100/= per month at the time of accident. Even though Tribunal taken future prospects, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas ((1994) 2 SCC 176), vagaries of life cannot be predicted. No definite data was also produced to calculate future prospects. There was likelihood of marriage if he was alive and present claimants may not get 2/3 of the amount as contribution to them. Taking all these aspects, we are of the view that for the purpose of calculation only Rs.6,760/= can be taken as monthly income and thereafter one third has to be deducted and Rs.4,500/= can be taken as the multiplicand. If Rs.4,500/= is taken as the multiplicand, compensation payable of loss of dependency will be Rs.5,94,000/= (4500 x 12 x 11). Tribunal MFA.732/2002 3 has awarded Rs.15,000/= for transport to hospital. Immediately after the accident, he has to be taken to hospital. We award Rs.3,000/= for transport to hospital and transporting the body by special conveyance to the house. For damages to clothing Rs.1,000/= and for funeral expenses Rs.5,000/= is awarded. He died on the same day. So, for pain and suffering Rs.5,000/= is awarded. Compensation for love and affection Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/=. We are not changing the same. For loss of estate we award Rs.5,000/=. Therefore, total compensation payable will be Rs.6,28,000/= instead of Rs.15,00,000/=. The above Rs.6,28,000/= should be deposited by the appellant insurance company with interest and proportionate cost as awarded by the Tribunal after deducting the amount already deposited. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE A.K.BASHEER JUDGE tks