IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 971 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.79/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. RINCY SIBY, W/O.LATE SIBY JOSEPH, AGED 30, DEVATHARA HOUSE, PALLIKKOTTUMMA, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. ROBIN (MINOR), AGED 7, S/O.LATE SIBY JOSEPH, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER RINCY SIBY OF DO. DO. 3. ALEYAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 50, M/O.LATE SIBY JOSEPH, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA(ALAPPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SUNIL.V.S., S/O.SUKUMARAN, COLONY NO.118, RAMANKARY, ALAPPUZHA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SHAKTHI BHAVAN, KANNADI EAST MURI, KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, WARD NO.VI, PULINCUNNU PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 2. K.K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, ANISH BHAVAN, PULINCUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PARAKKADAVIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIYAN (THIRUVALLA) B/O FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 971 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.79/2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. They are the wife, minor son and mother of deceased Siby Jospeh who died in a motor accident that occurred on November 2, 2002 at about 5.20 p.m. The accident happened while the deceased was driving the goods auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL 4/H-918 along Alappuzha- Changanassery road and when he reached near Ramankary, it collided head on with the jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-B/7317 driven by the first respondent. Alleging negligence against the first respondent, the claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending jeep remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending jeep filed a written statement MACA.No.971/2009 2 admitting the policy and further contended that there was also negligence on the part of the deceased. Fourth respondent is the insurer of the goods auto rickshaw which was driven by the deceased which is also the same Insurance Company. 3. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of respondents 3 and 4. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The claimants have now come up in revision challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are MACA.No.971/2009 3 entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : Loss of dependency - Rs. 3,40,000/- Loss of consortium - Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 5,000/- Ambulance charge - Rs. 2,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 3,000/- 7. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the loss of dependency, for loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium and for pain and suffering endured by the deceased. 8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- which works out to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- was taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs. 3,40,000/- for the loss of dependency. As the deceased was a driver as evidenced by his driving licence Ext.A7 and Ext.A8 badge, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 3,500/- which comes to MACA.No.971/2009 4 Rs. 42,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 28,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17 which is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,76,000/- ( 28,000 x 17). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,36,000/-. 9. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the young age of the widow, we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 10. For loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the tender age of the second claimant, the minor son, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 11. For the pain and suffering endured, Rs. 5,000/- was MACA.No.971/2009 5 awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be quite inadequate. We feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 12 In the result, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,56,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.971/2009 6 MACA.No.971/2009 7