IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 1319 of 2008 ------------------------------------- OPMV.3204/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT / 2nd RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. COCHIN-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS / CLAIMANTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. BINOY JOSEPH,S/O. N.M.OUSEPH RESIDING AT 34/1363, NEDIYANIKUZHIYIL HOUSE MOTHER TERESA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24. 2. BIJOY JOSEPH, S/O. N.M.OUSEPH RESIDING AT 34/1363, NEDIYANIKUZHIYIL HOUSE MOTHER TERESA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24. ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln.No.1294 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A.No.1319 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. C.M.Appln.No.1294 OF 2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Having perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of the delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. We do so. M.A.C.A.No.1319 OF 2008 This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company which impugns the award passed in favour of the two children of a deceased school teacher. By the impugned award, the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.4,46,000/- to respondents 1 and 2 with 7.5% interest thereon from the date of claim petition till its realisation and with proportionate cost. 2. Deceased Rosa a Selection Grade Primary School Teacher was travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter being driven by her husband at about 7.45 p.m. on March 15, 1999 on Vyttila - Edappally Bypass Road. She was knocked down when another two wheeler hit her bike. Later she succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by her in the accident. 3. The two children of deceased Rosa filed the claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- attributing negligence on the part of the offending two wheeler which was covered under a valid insurance policy issued by the appellant. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the claimants, found that the accident occurred due to the C.M.Appln.No.1294 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A.No.1319 OF 2008 :: 2 :: negligence of the rider of the offending two wheeler. The oral testimony of PW1 in this regard was accepted and consequently it was held that the insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured. 5. As mentioned earlier, deceased Rosa was a Selection Grade Teacher in a primary school. She was 48 at the time of the accident. Ext.A5 salary certificate revealed that deceased Rosa was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.9,160/- after all deductions. The Tribunal applying a multiplier of 13, reckoned the amount of compensation as Rs.4,16,000/-. In addition to the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,500/- towards transportation, Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, an aggregate sum of Rs.4,46,000/- was awarded to the claimants. 6. We have carefully perused the impugned award and heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and respondents/claimants. On the face of the admitted position that deceased Rosa was a Selection Grade teacher in a primary school and that she was drawing a salary of around Rupees 10,000/- per mensem, in our view, there is no scope for any interference in the award passed by the Tribunal. Similarly, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal cannot be in any way stated to be illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the policy cover cannot be disputed also. In view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award. Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes