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 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 757 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.451/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD,KALPETTA. .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. PATHU POTTAYIL, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O LATE AMMAD, POYIKANDY HOUSE, KOOLIVAYAL, CHERUKATTOOR P.O., MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT. 2. MOIDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE AMMAD, RESIDING -DO- 3. JAMEELA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O LATE AMMAD, REDISING -DO- 4. AYSHA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O LATE AMMAD, RESIDING -DO- 5. ASHRAF, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O LATE AMMAD, RESIDING -DO- 6. SAHEED, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O LATE AMMAD, RESIDING -DO- BY ADV. SRI.N.J.ANTONY Kss ..2/- ...2... MACA NO.757/2007 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.NAINAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O KADER, KANHAI HOUSE, PILAKKAVU, MANANTHAVADY, WYNAD. (DRIVER OF JEEP NO.KL-10G/6447. D.L.NO.9788/95) 2. K.JALAL, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O KADER, KUNDIL HOUSE, AMBUKUTHY, MANANTHAVADY. (OWNER OF JEEP NO. KL-10G/6447) 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, KALPETTA. (POLICY NO.101601/31/050/11/11924/99. FROM 23.8.1999 TO 22.8.2000) 4. SOOPY, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O AMMAD, MADEMPALLY HOUSE, PULIKKAD, NALLOORNADU, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KL-12A/6047 D.L.NO. NOT KNOWN) 5. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (POLICY NO.NOT KNWON. COVER NOTE NO.250849 VALID FROM 1.10.1999 TO 30.9.2000) R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE R5 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A.No. 757 of 2007 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimants in O.P.(MV) No.451 of 2000 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated August 21, 2006 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,26,500/- for the loss caused to them, on account of the death of one Ammed in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:- Deceased Ammed was aged 60 at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as a fish seller. Claimants are his wife and major married children. On June 4, 2000 at about 6 a.m. deceased Ammed was pillion riding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL.12A/6047 from Mananthavady to Kaniyaram. The motor cycle was ridden by fourth respondent. When they reached near “B” street, a MACA 757/2007 2 jeep bearing registration No.KL.10G/6447, driven by first respondent, came at a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle. Ammed sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode on June 6, 2000. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent, driver of the offending jeep. The first respondent as the driver, second respondent as the owner and third respondent as the insurer of the offending jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants who are the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. Respondents 4 and 5 are the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the motor cycle. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending jeep, remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, insurer of the offending jeep filed a written statement, admitting the policy and further contended that there was also negligence on the part of the MACA 757/2007 3 rider of the motor cycle. Fourth respondent, owner-cum- rider of the motor cycle, on which the claimant was pillion riding at the time of the accident, remained absent before the Tribunal. Fifth respondent, insurer of the said motor cycle, filed written statement, admitting the policy and further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,26,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and costs. The claimants have come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents 3 and 5. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence MACA 757/2007 4 on the part of the first respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,26,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,000/- Extra-nourishment : Rs. 500/- Medical expenses : Rs. 1,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 25,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/- Loss of dependency : Rs. 80,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.1,26,500/- ======== 8. The learned counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency. He also pointed out that no compensation was awarded for the loss of consortium and loss of estate. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-. After deducting 1/3 for his personal MACA 757/2007 5 expenses, Rs.16,000/- per annum was taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 5 and awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- for loss of dependency. The second claimant as PW1 testified that the deceased was a Fish Merchant and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, which is disputed by the contesting respondents. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was a Fish Merchant, we feel that his monthly income can reasonably be estimated at Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, Rs.2,000/- per month will be taken as his monthly contribution to his family, which works out Rs.24,000/- per annum. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 5 is not seriously challenged. Therefore, for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.40,000/- on this count. 10. For loss of consortium, no compensation is seen awarded by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged 60 and his MACA 757/2007 6 wife, first claimant, was aged 54 at the time of the accident. Therefore, for the loss of consortium, we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable. 11. No compensation was awarded for loss of estate. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a compensation of Rs.5,000/- would be reasonable on this count. . 12. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum, which appears to be very low. The claimants are entitled to interest at 7.5% per annum on the compensation already awarded as well as for the additional compensation awarded. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 13. In the result, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The order of the Tribunal is modified as MACA 757/2007 7 found above. The third respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.