IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 19 of 2006() ------------------------------- OPMV.750/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1 TO 6 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PONNARATH PALLIYALIL HOUSE, KLARIMOOCHICAL, P.O. KUTTIPPALA. 2. THANK, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 3. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 4. SINDHU, D/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 5. SANDHYA, D/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 6 . DINESH, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 7. SANAL, S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, KANNAMANGALAM, EDARICODE P.O.-676 501. 8. SIDDIQUE N., S/O. HAMZA, NEDUVANCHERI HOUSE, KARUKA, KALPPAKANCHERI, MALAPPURAM DIST.-676 501. ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR R.1, R2& R4 TO R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== M.A.C.A.No.19 of 2006 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. A 24 year old youngster sustained fatal injuries in an accident on 13.9.2003 and after three days he succumbed to the injuries. The parents, brothers and sisters claimed compensation for the death alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by the second respondent and owned by the first respondent. The vehicle was duly insured by the appellant - Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence awarded a total amount of Rs.5,31,500/- which is inclusive of medical expenses. As he succumbed to the injuries only after the treatment of three days, life saving medicines were administered. The only contention raised by the Insurance Company is regarding the quantum of compensation. MACA 19/06 -: 2 :- 2. According to the Insurance Company, the multiplier of 15 is on the higher side. The deceased was 24 years old. If the age of the deceased is taken into account 17 can be taken as the multiplier. The Apex Court held that for the motor accident victims between the age of 20 and 25 the maximum multiplier that can be taken is 17. But in this case, he was unmarried. In the above circumstances, the age of the claimants ought to have been considered. Here, the Tribunal found that his mother was aged below 45. As per Ext.A11, her age was 39 on 1.1.1998. So, on the date of accident, she was 44 years old and taking the guidance from the second schedule, the Tribunal fixed 15 as the multiplier. We also notice that it was proved that the deceased was a motor mechanic. Ext.A9 salary certificate issued by Crecent Auto Garriage shows that he was earning Rs.250/- per day. The accident occurred in 2003. Considering the fact that he was a motor mechanic and was getting Rs.250/- per day, it cannot be said to be very excessive. But the Tribunal fixed the income as Rs.130/- per day and calculated the compensation and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, only Rs.2,650/- was taken as the monthly loss of dependency to the family. The MACA 19/06 -: 3 :- loss caused to the family due to the death of 24 year man and earning member cannot be estimated in money. But the Tribunal has calculated the compensation in accordance with the well accepted principles. Medical expenses were granted considering the actual medical bills. He died only after three days of struggling. The compensation for pain and suffering was awarded by the Tribunal correctly. Valid reasons are given by the Tribunal. We see no ground to interfere with the award of the Tribunal in appeal proceedings. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 19/7