IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1555 of 2007 B -------------------------------------------- OPMV.586/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------- 1. SUNITHA, W/O. LATE VIJEESH BABU, AGED 19 YEARS, KURUMBENCHERRY HOUSE, VIA THUMPATH PARAMBA, P.O.VALAKULAM, MALAPPURAM-676 508. 2. CHINNAMMU, W/O. CHAKKU, AGED 59 YEARS, KURUMBENCHERRY HOUSE, VIA THUMPATH PARAMBA, P.O.VALAKULAM, MALAPPURAM-676 508. 3. SURESH BABU, S/O. CHAKKU, AGED 27 YRS, KURUMBENCHERRY HOUSE, VIA THUMPATH PARAMBA, P.O.VALAKULAM, MALAPPURAM-676 508. 4. SNEHA(MINOR),AGED 1 YEAR, D/O.LATE VIJEESH BABU,KURUMBENCHERRY(H),VIA THUMPATH PARAMBA, P.O.VALAKULAM, MALAPPURAM-676508,(REP. BY NEXT FRIEND & GUARDIAN, HER MOTHER SUNITHA,W/O. LATE VIJEESH BABU, KURUMBENCHERRY(H), VIA THUMPATH PARAMBA, P.O.VALAKULAM, MALAPPURAM-676 508). BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. P.SALIM, S/O. HAJI P.KUNHIMOHAMMED, PATTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.CHAMRAVATTAM, TIRUR-676 110, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JAYAPRAKASAN P.V., S/O. APPUNNI P.V., PALLILA VALAPPIL HOUSE, CHAMRAVATTOM, PIN-676 110, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. MACA.NO.1555/2007 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CKH BUILDING, TIRUR-676 101. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO. 1555 OF 2007 B ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th August, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Delay is condoned. We are not issuing notice in this Appeal, as there is appearance for the Insurance Company and the only dispute is with regard to the the quantum. The Appeal is taken up for hearing on consent. 2. Appellants are the widow, mother, brother and daughter of deceased Vijeesh Babu, who died as a result of the injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 03.4.2005. The tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,96,600/= as against the claim for Rs.7,93,000/=. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, MACA.NO.1555/07 B 2 Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the tribunal has taken only 8 as the multiplier and the age of the wife is not considered and the age of the widow was 19 and 17 should have been taken as the multiplier. We have perused the Award. Paragraph 11 reads as follows: “11. The deceased would have spent one-third of his income to meet his own expenses. It can be found that he would have contributed Rs.1,700/= per month to his wife and daughter and Rs.300/= per month to his mother. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 can be adopted to determine the amount of compensation for loss of dependency due to the wife and child. This amount comes to Rs.3,46,800/= (1700x12x17). Considering the age of the mother of the deceased, multiplier of 8 can be adopted to determine the amount of compensation for loss of dependency due to her. This amount comes to Rs.28,800/= (300x12x8).” A perusal of paragraph 11 would show that the tribunal has in MACA.NO.1555/07 B 3 fact taken 17 as the multiplier and it awarded Rs.3,46,800/= and further awarded Rs.28,800/= by taking 8 as the multiplier in respect of the mother who was 59 years of age. We see absolutely no reason to interfere. The contribution as far as the wife and daughter is taken as Rs.1,700/=, and Rs.300/= has been taken as contribution to the mother. The tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/= per month as the income of the deceased and it was apparently after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, that the contributions to his wife and daughter and mother are arrived at. We see no reason to accept the contention. However, we notice that the appellants are given only Rs.10,000/= towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. We feel that the appellants should have been awarded Rs.10,000/= each for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Accordingly, we award Rs.10,000/= more and the Appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are allowed to MACA.NO.1555/07 B 4 realise Rs.10,000/= more from the third respondent with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge