IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 846 of 2011 ---------------------- OPMV.600/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT : 3RD RESPONDENT -------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, VARIKKODAN BUILDING, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI P.O., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KADAMKULATHIL TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENTS : CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 --------------- 1. SAINABA C., 55 YEARS, W/O.LATE SAINUDHEEN, KIZHAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PANAMBI, AMMINIKKAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK - 679322. 2. MOHAMMED BASHEER, 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE SAINUDHEEN, KIZHAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PANAMBI, AMMINIKKAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK - 679322. 3. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.UNNEEN, KARATHIL HOUSE, CHETHANAMKURSSI, ANAMANGAD P.O., PERINTHALAMANNA TALUK, PIN-679357. 4. HAMSA HAJI, S/O.ENI HAJI, KUNDOLI HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA P.O., KONDATTY VIA., EMAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673641. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.846 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The insurer is the appellant. Claimants are a widow, aged 55 years and her son, aged 36 years. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,45,457/- against the claim for Rs.4,75,000/-. The details are given in the tabular summary of compensation claimed and awarded appended to the award. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant was requested to explain the basis of the challenge that the appellant wants to raise in this appeal. The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that instead of 5, the multiplier was reckoned as 9 by the Tribunal. The deceased was a person aged between 60-65 years and for such a person, as per the second schedule, the multiplier which is to be reckoned is only 5. Instead, the Tribunal had reckoned the multiplier as 9. This is the short contention raised. 3. The deceased had left behind his widow, aged 55 years. Going by the multiplier to be reckoned for a dependent aged 55 years, it is 9 or more going by General Manager, M.A.C.A No.846 of 2011 2 Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas [1994 ACJ 1 (SC)], U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra [1996 ACJ 831 (SC)] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [2005 ACJ 1131 (SC)] and the second schedule. The deceased was reckoned as aged 60 years. The Tribunal evidently went by the age shown in the postmortem certificate. The counsel contends that in the light of Ext.A7 driving licence which shows the date of birth to be 15.07.1944, the deceased on the date of the accident must have been reckoned as aged 62 years. In reckoning the multiplier at 9, instead of 5, the Tribunal erred. This in short is the contention raised. 4. We must alertly remind ourselves that we are called upon to invoke and exercise our jurisdiction in appeal. 9 was the multiplier to be taken, if the age of the dependent/wife were taken into consideration. Going by the age of the deceased, the multiplier can be taken as 9, 8, 7, 5 or 6 as per the various table adopted and as shown in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)]. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not persuaded to agree that the said alleged inadequacy committed by the Tribunal in reckoning the multiplier at 9 is M.A.C.A No.846 of 2011 3 sufficient to warrant interference in appeal. The total compensation amount of Rs.2,45,457/- awarded by the Tribunal does appear to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. The primary purpose of the exercise before the Tribunal is to award compensation which is reasonable, fair and just. Notwithstanding the inadequacy in the reckoning of the multiplier, we are satisfied that the primary purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is eminently served by the quantum of compensation awarded. The error committed in the reckoning of the multiplier does not persuade us to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. 6. This M.A.C.A is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/ M.A.C.A No.846 of 2011 4 R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.1338 of 2011 in M.A.C.A No.846 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 4 days in filing an appeal. Heard the learned counsel. We take a lenient view. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/