IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 1389 of 2005() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1621/1996 of PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ *1. VELAYUDHAN. N., S/O. APPU, NADAMMAL HOUSE, KANNADIKKAL, P.O. VENGERI, KOZHIKODE. *(DIED) 2. DEVAKI. N., W/O. VELAYUDHAN, NADAMMAL HOUSE, KANNADIKKAL, P.O. VENGERI, KOZHIKODE. 3. VINOD. N., S/O. VELAYUDHAN, NADAMMAL HOUSE, KANNADIKKAL, P.O. VENGERI, KOZHIKODE. * ADDL. 4TH APPELLANT IMPLEADED ADDL. A4: VIJAYAN N., S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NADAMMAL HOUSE, KANNADIKKAL P.O., VENGERI, KOZHIKODE. * IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 10/12/2007 IN I.A. NO.2880/2007. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, COIMBATORE. 2. K. JAYASEELAN DAVID, S/O. JOSEPH, MARUSAVANTH LAIN, KETHY POST, NILGIRI DISTRICT PILLAYORTHUDI STREET, UTHAKAMUNDA, TAMILNADU. 3. SUPPL.R3. MAHAKAVI BHARATHIYAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION, OOTTY, TAMILNADU. R1 BY SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN, SMT.RAJI VINCENT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2011, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 127 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A.Nos. 1389 of 2005 and 127 of 2006 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and award of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV) No.1621 of 1996 dated April 27, 2005. M.A.C.A.No.127 of 2006 is filed by the respondent No.1 in the O.P., who is the owner of the offending bus, while M.A.C.A.No.1389 of 2005 is filed by the claimants in the O.P. In both these appeals the appellants challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- for the loss caused to the claimants on account of death of one Manoj in a motor accident. 2. The accident occurred on April 15, 1996 at about 4 p.m. at Oodathodu near Meppadi while deceased Manoj and others were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KL- MACA 1389/2005 & con. case 2 11/C 3100 from Ootty to Calicut. When they reached at Odathodu, it collided head on with a bus bearing registration No.TN.D. 490. Manoj sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained on the way to hospital. Alleging negligence against the driver of the offending bus, respondent No.2 in the O.P., the claimants who are parents and brother of deceased Manoj filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 3. The offending bus belongs to Cheran Transport Corporation,Coimbatore. Respondent No.1 in the O.P. is the Managing Director of the Corporation and respondent No.3 in the O.P. is the Mahakavi Bharathiyar Transport Corporation. The bus belong to them. Respondent No.2 in the O.P. is the driver of the offending bus at the time of the accident. They filed a joint written statement admitting the accident but denied the liability. They attributed negligence to the driver of the jeep. 4. This O.P. was tried along with other Original MACA 1389/2005 & con. case 3 Petitions filed by legal heirs of deceased persons in the accident as well as other injured persons. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A24 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the respondents in the O.P., RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of respondent No.2 in the O.P. , the driver of the offending bus, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and cost of Rs.1,500/-. The claimants have filed M.A.C.A. No.2489 of 2005 claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal while respondent No.1 in the O.P. the owner of the offending bus has filed M.A.C.A.No. 127 of 2006 challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence. 5. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the Corporation. 6. The following points arise for consideration in this MACA 1389/2005 & con. case 4 appeal:- 1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence of respondent No.2 in the O.P. can be sustained ? 2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. If not whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation? 7. The police has charged the case against respondent No.2 in the O.P. Ext.A2 is the F.I.R. PW2, one of the eye-witness to the incident, as well as the injured testified in a convincing manner that the accident occurred due to negligence of respondent No.2 in the O.P.. In an attempt to prove that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the jeep, the respondents in the O.P. examined RW1, and produced Ext.B1 photograph of the accident. The lower court did not believe the evidence of RW1. We have also gone through his evidence. We find no reason to come to a different conclusion. Further photograph Ext.B1 shows that the bus is on the wrong side. Therefore, we are inclined to confirm the finding of the MACA 1389/2005 & con. case 5 Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence of respondent No.2 in the O.P., driver of the offending bus. 8. The next question for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/-. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses Rs.1,000/- was taken as his monthly contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs.1,56,000/- for the loss of dependency. The deceased was aged 22 at the time of the accident and was a Coconut Climber earning Rs.4,000/- per month, according to the claimants. Considering the above aspect, we are of the view that monthly income of the deceased can reasonably be fixed as Rs.2,500/-, which comes to Rs.30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses balance amount of Rs.20,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 13 is not seriously challenged. Thus, for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a MACA 1389/2005 & con. case 6 compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- (Rs.20,000/- x 13). Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore,we are not disturbing the same. Regarding the apportionment of the compensation amount and disbursement of the same, the direction of the Tribunal will stand. 10. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,04,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 7% per annum, which appears to be very low. The claimants entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. Respondents 1 and 3 in the O.P. being the owners of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 11. In the result M.A.C.A. No.1389 of 2005 is MACA 1389/2005 & con. case 7 disposed of as found above and M.A.C.A. No. 127 of 2006 is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.