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 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 1116 of 2010() ------------------------------- OPMV.412/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------------------------ 1. SATHYAPALAN, S/O.KUNJUPILLAI, VALLIKKALAYIL (H), PAYYAMPALLY (PO), MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. SOBHANA, W/O.SATHYAPALAN, VALLIKKALAYIL (H), PAYYAMPALLY (PO), MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. RAJIMOL.V.S., D/O.SATHYAPALAN, VALLIKKALAYIL (H), PAYYAMPALLY (PO), MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A. K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1116 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY,2010 JUDGMENT ---------- Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 16, 2010 in OP(MV)No. 412/05 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,90,500/- for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the death of Sri. Rajesh in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: Deceased Rajesh was aged 27 at the time of accident and as an electrician used to earn Rs. 7500/- per month according to the claimants. Claimants are parents and sister of the deceased. On January 15, 2005 deceased M.A.C.A. NO. 1116 OF 2010 2 'Rajesh' was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. KL 11/D 5260 from Koylandi to Mananthavady. At that time, a bus bearing registration No. KL 11/D 3393 driven by the first respondent came at a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries sustained on the next day while undergoing treatment in the hospital. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent, the driver of the bus. Respondents 1 to 3, the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. M.A.C.A. NO. 1116 OF 2010 3 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending bus respectively in the O.P appeared before the Tribunal and filed a joint written statement denying the charges levelled against them. The 3rd respondent in the above claim petition,the appellant herein, filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased as well as that of the 1st respondent, the driver of the offending bus. 4. This O.P was jointly tried along with OP(MV) No. 288/05 filed by another injured person in the same accident and a common award was passed. PW1 and 2 was examined and Exts.A1 to A15 and C1 were marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd M.A.C.A. NO. 1116 OF 2010 4 respondent, the appellant herein. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus, the 1st respondent in the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,90,500/-. Now the appellant, insurance company has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the claimants. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus, the 1st respondent in the claim petition is not challenged in this appeal. The appellant contended that the compensation M.A.C.A. NO. 1116 OF 2010 5 awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and without any basis. Therefore,the only question which arises for consideration whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,90,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: Towards Loss of dependency =Rs. 3,63,999 Towards loss of love and affection = Rs. 10,000 Towards funeral expenses = Rs. 5,000 Towards pain and suffering = Rs. 6,000 Towards Transport to hospital = Rs. 5,000 Towards damage to clothing = Rs. 500 and articles 8. The counsel for the appellant, insurance company argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive , that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal as M.A.C.A. NO. 1116 OF 2010 6 Rs. 3500/- is not correct and that as the claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased, the multiplier adopted as 13 is on the higher side. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3500/- and after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, took Rs.2,333.3/- per month as his contributions to his family on the ground that according to PW2, the deceased was employed as electrician under PW2, who was running an electric shop and was drawing a salary of Rs. 7500/- per month. Ext.A11 is the job certificate issued by PW2 and Ext.A14 is the qualification certificate which shows that the deceased had undergone a course for electric house wiring course in Vocational Training Programme. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking the M.A.C.A. NO. 1116 OF 2010 7 monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,333.3/- per month. As regards multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 13, we find no reason to disturb the same. The mother of the deceased was aged 47 at the time of accident and father was aged 50. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking the multiplier of 13. Therefore, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and that on the other hand it is just and reasonable. That being so the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE M.A.C.A. NO. 1116 OF 2010 8 PKK