IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1494 of 2011() ----------------------- O.P.(MV) NO.656/02 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA. APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ 1. AMBIKAMMA, THANDATHU VADAKKATHIL, PUTHEN KOTTACKAKAM, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, THANDATHU VADAKKATHIL, PUTHEN KOTTACKAKAM, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA. 3. SURYAKALA, THANDATHU VADAKKATHIL, PUTHEN KOTTACKAKAM, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. NIZHAMUDEEN, PANCHAVELUMVEL PADEETTATHIL, THEKKUKOCHU MURI, KRISHNAPURAM, PIN-690 533. 2. ABDUL BASHEER, KUTTIYIL THEKKETHU, CHATHIYARA, THAMARAKULAM, PIN-690 530. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KAYAMKULAM-690 502. ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI. M.A. GEORGE -R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1494 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimants are the appellants. They are the mother aged 50 years and siblings of a deceased person, aged 24 years, who succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 12/10/2001. He was a driver by profession. Ext.A8 is the driving licence particulars and Ext.A9 is the salary certificate issued by his employer which claims that his monthly income was `4,500/-. 2. Against a total claim limited to `5,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of `2,92,000/- as compensation as per the details which are available in paragraph-7 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amounts awarded (in Rs.) 1 Transportation and ambulance expenses 4,000/- 2 Damage to clothing 500/- 3 Pain and sufferings 5,000/- 4 Loss of dependency 2,73,000/- (3500 x 12 x ½ x 13) 5 Funeral expenses 4,500/- M.A.C.A. No. 1494 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sl. No. Head of Claim Amounts awarded (in Rs.) 6 Loss of estate etc ., 5,000/- Total Limited to Rs.5,00,000/- 2,92,000/- 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. Challenge is raised only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not sufficient and adequate. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants, first of all, contends that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering (`5,000/-) is grossly inadequate. Death occurred when the deceased was being moved to the hospital from the scene of the accident. We are satisfied that `10,000/- can be awarded as compensation under the head of pain and suffering. 5. It is then contended that no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. We agree that an amount of `15,000/- deserves to be awarded under that head. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation, for loss of M.A.C.A. No. 1494 of 2011 -: 3 :- dependency, 13 has been reckoned as the multiplier. The first claimant/mother being a woman aged 50 years, in the absence of better evidence, multiplier applicable to the persons of the age group of 50 to 55 years was taken by the Tribunal. We are unable to find any fault in that approach made by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants then contends that the monthly income of the deceased reckoned by the Tribunal (`3,500/-) is grossly inadequate. Reliance is placed on Exts.A8 and A9. Ext.A9 has not been proved and the Tribunal committed no error, according to us, in not accepting and acting upon Ext.A9; but Ext.A8 driving licence particulars reveals that he had valid driving licence. The driving licence authorised him to drive light motor vehicles as well as heavy passenger and heavy goods motor vehicles. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that `4,000/- can safely be reckoned as the multiplicand giving due provision for future improvement in prospects of his employment of the young deceased. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of `59,000/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand only) as shown below as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal: M.A.C.A. No. 1494 of 2011 -: 4 :- 1. Pain and suffering (`10,000/- minus `5,000/-) - `5,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) - `15,000/- 3. Loss of dependency (`4,000/- x 12 x ½ x 13 = `3,12,000/- minus `2,73,000/-) - `39,000/- ------------- Total - `59,000/- ====== 9. We are not persuaded to interfere with the amount awarded under any other head. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that no cost has been awarded in the proceedings before the Tribunal following the dictum in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). Proportionate cost may be awarded, contends counsel. We agree. 11. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of `59,000/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award. M.A.C.A. No. 1494 of 2011 -: 5 :- (d) Proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be paid to the appellants/claimants on the entire amount of compensation as indicated in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). (e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No. 1494 of 2011 -: 6 :- R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M. Appl. No.2288 of 2011 in M.A.C.A. No. 1494 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 ORDER This petition is to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the M.A.C.A. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R. BASANT (Judge) V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/