IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2091 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.485/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ----------------------------------------------------- 1. KADEEJA, D/O.KUNJIKOYA, KALLNKUNNAN HOUSE, PULLENGODE POST, KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM. 2. ASHRAF, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, KALLNKUNNAM HOUSE, PULLENGODE POST, KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM. 3. NOUFAL, FAYIZ MON, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, KALLNKUNNAM HOUSE, PELLENGODE POST, KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM. 4. SAJNA, D/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, KALLNKUNNAN HOUSE, PULLENGODE POST, KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM. 5. MOHAMMADALI, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, KALLNKUNNAN HOUSE, PULLENGODE POST, KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. SURESH BABU @ BABU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PATTIKADAN HOUSE, AMARAMBALAML POST, MALAPPURAM. 2. MADHU, S/.O.VELAYUDHAN, KOOVAKATTIL HOUSE, AMARAMBALAML POST, MALAPPURAM. 3. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM . ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.2091 of 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Thomas P. Joseph, J. Appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased who died in a motor accident on 21.9.2000. It is alleged that while the deceased was riding on the pillion of a motor cycle, Jeep driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent hit the motor cycle. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the first respondent, appellants claimed Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. Tribunal awarded Rs.1,53,000/-. Claiming enhancement, appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation. 4. First appellant is the mother of the deceased. She was aged 44 years at the time of the accident. Appellants 2, 3, and 5 are brothers and 4th appellant is the sister of the deceased. Tribunal found that appellants are entitled to get compensation and made respondents 1 to 3 liable to pay the M.A.C.A. No.2091 of 2005 -: 2 :- same. These findings are not under challenge before us. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the monthly income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is low and that the multiplier adopted is not correct. Further contention is that compensation was not awarded for pain and suffering undergone by the deceased and loss of love and affection consequent to the death of the deceased. 5. According to the appellants, deceased aged 26 years at the relevant time was a driver by occupation earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Tribunal observed that no document is produced to prove the monthly income. Appellants had produced Exhibit A6, copy of the driving licence of the deceased. Thus it is shown that deceased was a driver by occupation. Though, no documentary evidence is produced to show the monthly income of the deceased, considering his age, occupation and the wages payable to a professional driver at the relevant time, we are inclined to think that the Tribunal was not correct in fixing notional income and fixing loss of dependency and contribution at Rs.15,000/- per year. In the circumstances, we fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses loss of dependency and contribution to the appellants comes to Rs.20,000/- per year. 6. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the third M.A.C.A. No.2091 of 2005 -: 3 :- respondent that since the deceased was a bachelor and the first appellant has other sons also, dependency contribution may not be taken as 2/3rd of the monthly income. There is however no evidence or reason to think that the deceased was spending for his personal expenses more than 1/3rd of his income. Considering these aspects, we are not inclined to accept that contention of the third respondent. 7. Though it is contended by the third respondent that the Tribunal was not correct in taking 15 as the multiplier, we are unable to accept that contention as well, considering the fact that the deceased was aged 26 years and first appellant was only 44 years at the relevant time. Thus the compensation payable to the appellants for loss of dependency and contribution comes to be Rs.3,00,000/- (20,000x15) as against Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Appellants are entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on that count. Though as per the case of the appellants death of the deceased was on the date of accident itself, for pain and suffering undergone by him appellants are entitled to get a conventional sum of Rs.5,000/-. Tribunal did not award any amount on that count. So we award Rs.5,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering undergone by the deceased. 8. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A. No.2091 of 2005 -: 4 :- appellants that compensation awarded on other counts are low, considering the total amount of compensation to which the appellants are found entitled, we are not inclined to think that any further enhancement is required on other counts. Thus the additional compensation payable is Rs.1,55,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till date of realisation. This appeal therefore, is allowed in part. Appellants, over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, are allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifty five thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within one month from today. On such deposit the appellants can withdraw the amount in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv