IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 480 of 2004(C) ---------------------- OPMV.4085/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF LATE GOVINDANKUTTY MENON. 2. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF LATE GOVINDANKUTTY MENON, BOTH APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT DEVI KRIPA HOUSE, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-20 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.NITHYA.K. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. C.J.CLEETUS, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MOOLAMKUZHY P.O., COCHIN-2. 2. E.N.SOMAN, EDAKKATTU PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE KANJIRAMATTOM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.A.P.SUBHASH FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON 17/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 480 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th Day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Joseph Francis J. This appeal is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 in OPMV 4085/96 on the file of MACT, Ernakulam. Responents 1 to 3 herein are respondents 1 to 3 in that OPMV, which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The allegation is that on 14.7.1996 at about 5.45 pm, deceased Lekshmi Devi alongwith her father Sri. Govindankutty Menon, her mother Smt. Retnemma, deceased Murali Manohar and Narayana Iyer was travelling in a Maruti van bearing No.KL 6 2178 from North to South through the eastern side of the Aluva- Ernakulam national highway. The van was driven by deceased Lekshmi Devi. When they reached at South Kalamassery a bus bearing No.KL7C 6595 driven by second respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and collided M.A.C.A. NO: 480 OF 2004 : 2 : with the Maruti van, as a result of which the passengers in the Maruti van including Lekshmi Devi sustained serious injuries. Govindankutty Menon, Retnamma, Lekshmi Devi and Murali Manohar died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Narayana Iyer sustained serious injuries. The petitioners are the brothers of deceased Lekshmi Devi. They claimed Rs.6,62,750/- as compensation. First respondent was the owner of the bus and third respondent was the insurer. In the Claims Tribunal, Respondents 1 & 2 remained exparte. Third respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy of the bus and it contented that the accident was due to the negligence of deceased Lekshmi Devi and that compensation claimed is excessive. In the Claims Tribunal, OPMV 4085/96 was tried with other connected OPs. PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ext.A1 to A21 were marked. Learned Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence found that the accident was due to the negligence of second respondent, who M.A.C.A. NO: 480 OF 2004 : 3 : was driving the bus and Rs.1,15,000/- was awarded as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs from respondents and third respondent was directed to pay the compensation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the petitioners in OPMV 4085/96 filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the third respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded is very low, whereas the learned counsel for the third respondent supports the award. 5. In the petition, it is stated that Govinkankutty Menon was the Office Manager of ICM Private Limited, and late Retnamma was the partner of that firm and deceased Lekshmi Devi was the Managing Director. PW2 swears that Lekshmi Devi used M.A.C.A. NO: 480 OF 2004 : 4 : to give him Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,500/- per month. There is no documentary evidence to show that Lekshmi Devi had any income. So the Claims Tribunal took Rs.15,000/- per annum as notional income of Lekshmi Devi. After deducing 1/3 towards her personal expenses, Rs.10,000/- per year was taken as yearly savings of deceased Lekshmi Devi. Lekshmi Devi was not married and she was aged 23 years. Petitioners are the brothers of deceased Lekshmi Devi. Normally, girls are likely to get married at the age of 24 years and though it may vary in some cases. So, she could contribute the family out of her income only till her marriage. Therefore, we find no reason to increase the multiplier 10 taken by the Claims Tribunal. Hence, Rs.1,00,000/- assessed by the of Claims Tribunal as loss of estate adopting 10 as multiplier is reasonable. 6. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and transport expenses. Rs.5,000/- was awarded M.A.C.A. NO: 480 OF 2004 : 5 : towards compensation for pain and suffering. Rs.5,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed without costs. The award in O.P.(M.V.) 4085/96 in the file of M.A.C.T. Ernakulam is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/