IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 508 of 2007 F -------------------------------------------- OPMV.1219/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. SATHI DEVI P.P., W/O. LATE RAVEENDRAN K.N., KALLARANGATTU, CHOONDACHERY P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. VISHNU NARAYANAN R. (MINOR), D.O.B. 8.3.1997, S/O. LATE RAVEENDRAN K.N., REP. BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND THE 1ST PETITIONER. 3. VEENA R. (MINOR), D.O.B. 19.3.1999, D/O. LATE RAVEENDRAN K.N., REP. BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND THE 1ST PETITIONER. 4. VISHNUMAYA R. (MINOR), D.O.B. 17.12.2003, D/O. LATE RAVEENDRAN K.N., REP. BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND THE 1ST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.S.PRASANTH SMT.PRIYA BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. K.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. KESAVAN NAIR, KULAMKAROTTU (H), UZHAVOOR, UZHAVOOR P.O. 2. SAJEEV P.E., PARAYILPURAYIDOM (H), MUNDAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM P.O. MACA.NO.508/07 F 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA),SC(B/O) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO. 508 OF 2007 F --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph, J. Appellants are the widow and minor children of a person who died as a result of the injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. Appellants have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,41,170/=. The break up of the compensation is as follows: “Part I Rs. Transport to hospital 2,000/= Funeral Expenses 3,000/= Part II Pain and suffering 15,000/= Loss of Love and Affection 15,000/= Loss of consortium 15,000/= Loss of dependency 8,91,170/= --------------- Total 9,41,170/=” ========= MACA.508/07 F 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would essentially urge three grounds before us. In the first place, he would contend that the tribunal has erred in taking 12 as the multiplier. He would submit that when one goes by the age of the deceased which was 40 at the time of accident, the proper multiplier should have been 15. If one goes by the age of the wife which was 35 years, the multiplier should have been 16. The second contention which he urged before us is that the deceased was working as LIC Agent. He would submit that the appellants have produced materials before the tribunal to show the income which had been derived. The materials are in the form of Exts.A10, A11, A14 and A15. Ext.A10 is the Certificate issued by the LIC Branch Office, Pala. Ext.A11 is the copy of the MACA.508/07 F 3 Certificate of deduction of tax and deposit of tax. Ext.A14 is the Income tax returns of the deceased for the years 2003 - 04, 2002 - 03, 2001-02 and 2000-01. Ext.A15 is the Income tax return for the year 2004-05. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that a perusal of the aforesaid documents would make it clear that the deceased was doing well in his business and what is more, his income was increasing over the years and the future prospects have been ignored by the tribunal in assessing the income. This, he contends, is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (JT 2009 (6) SC 495). Thirdly, he would contend that the tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the expenditure of the deceased. According to him, having regard to the number of members in the family which is five including the deceased, the tribunal should have deducted only 1/4th towards expenses. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would support the Award. He submits that just compensation MACA.508/07 F 4 has been awarded. 4. The first question to be considered is the correctness of the multiplier adopted by the tribunal. The multiplier adopted is 12. Going by the age of the deceased, the multiplier will be 15 and going by the age of the wife, it will be 16. We cannot totally ignore the contentions of the Insurance Company that when the multiplier is on the higher side, the Court may have to properly fix the multiplier, so that ultimately the compensation which is awarded, is not excessive. 5. We feel that the appellants are justified at least in requesting us to fix the multiplier at 15. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is admittedly 15. If we apply the multiplier at 15, the total amount of compensation will be Rs.16,70,940/=. Calculating on the unit system, we will have to consider the amount to be deducted as personal expenses. Going by the unit system, there are seven units, as there are two majors and three minors. We can safely take the MACA.508/07 F 5 expenses of the deceased at 1/4th in such circumstances. If that is so, 1/4th of Rs.16,70,940/= will be Rs.4,17,735/= which means the dependency would be worked out at Rs.12,53,205/= which is rounded off to Rs.12,53,000/=. We feel that by fixing this compensation, we also need not consider any further enhancement on the head of future prospects in employment, which the learned counsel for the appellants pressed before us in the wake of the decision of the Apex Court that even in the case of a self-employed person, future prospects may be taken into consideration. This is for the reason that when we consider the increased compensation which we have awarded towards dependency and the rate of interest available, some increase in future prospects will be factored in. In such circumstances, the Appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.3,61,170/= with interest at 7.5 per MACA.508/07 F 6 cent in the same ratio from the third respondent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge