IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 970 of 2006(B) ---------------------- OPMV.1587/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. SMT.JANCY ABRAHAM, W/O. DECEASED ABRAHAM K.K. @ BABU, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KADEKKARAPPALLY P.O., MADACKAL, CHERTHALA. 2. MR. BIJOYS J. ABRAHAM, S/O. DECEASED ABRAHAM K.K. @ BABU, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KADEKKARAPPALLY P.O., MADACKAL, CHERTHALA. 3. BISMI MANY ABRAHAM (MINOR) D/O.DECEASED ABRAHAM K.K. @ BABU, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KADEKKARAPPALLY P.O., MADACKAL, CHERTHALA. 4. SMT. TRESIAMMA KURIAKOSE, W/O. LATE KURIAKOSE, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KADEKKARAPPALLY P.O., MADACKAL, CHERTHALA. 5. SMT. RINCY KURIAKOSE, D/O. LATE KURIAKOSE, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., MADACKAL, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MR. ANTONY JOHN, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.111/65, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MR. RANI JOHN, W/O. ANTONY JOHN, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.111/65, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. MACA.No. 970 of 2006(B) - 2 - 3. MR. P. VIJAYAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, THAIKKUTTATHIL HOUSE, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESETNED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R.4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.970 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the wife aged 37 years, 2 minor children - aged 13 and 9 years, mother aged 61 years and an unmarried dependent sister, aged 21 years of the deceased - a person aged 44 years who suffered injuries in a motor accident and succumbed to the injuries on 30.07.2000. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation. They contended that the deceased was a P.W.D contractor, a dealer in fertilisers as also an agriculturalist. From these three sources they claimed that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.16,000/-. 2. Before the Tribunal Exts.A1 to A24 were marked and PWs 1 to 3 were examined. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to award a total amount of Rs.6,30,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below. M.A.C.A No.970 of 2006 2 i) Transportation : Rs.2,000/- ii) Funeral expenses : Rs.3,000/- iii) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- iv) Loss of love and affection : Rs.10,000/- v) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/- vi) Loss of dependency (6000 X 12 X 2/3 X 15): Rs.6,00,000/- (It is pointed out that the product must be 7,20,000/0) .................... Total : Rs.6,30,000/- .................... The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3. The appellants claimed to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellants want to raise against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants raises various grounds. 4. First of all the counsel contends that the awarding of interest @ 6% per annum is grossly inadequate. Relying on precedents, the counsel contends that interest must have been M.A.C.A No.970 of 2006 3 awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel. 5. Secondly the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the multiplicand was reckoned at Rs.6,000/- and this is too inadequate. The counsel relies on the income certificate issued by the Village Officer produced as Ext.A16. He relies on the income tax clearance certificate Ext.A14. He further relies on Ext.A13 contractor registration card of the deceased which shows that he was registered as a C class P.W.D contractor. The counsel further relies on Exts.A11 and A12 certificates, which show that the deceased was a subscriber to chitties and he was making a payment of Rs.2,500/- in all for the chitties. In these circumstances the counsel contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in reckoning the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- only. 6. The counsel submits that in any view of the matter, an inadvertent arithmetical error has been committed by the Tribunal and that has resulted in reduction of Rs.1,20,000/- in the total compensation amount. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants further contends that in any view of the matter considering the age of M.A.C.A No.970 of 2006 4 the deceased and the 1st claimant wife - 44 years and 37 years, a higher amount must have been awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Two minor children, the wife and the mother are entitled for compensation for loss of love and affection. The award of an amount of Rs.10,000/- only, does also deserve upward modification, it is contended. 8. We are in agreement with the counsel that the arithmetical error at any rate deserves to be corrected. We have anxiously considered the question whether the multiplicand deserves to be raised from Rs.6,000/- per mensem. We take particular note of the income tax clearance certificates which are produced and they do not at any rate support the contention of the appellants. However, we take note of the totality of circumstances and are persuaded to agree that Rs.6,000/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income of the deceased. There is a dispute as to whether the Tribunal has reckoned the amount at Rs.5,000/- per mensem or Rs.6,000/- per mensem. The impugned award clearly shows that it was reckoned as Rs.6,000/-. The manner in which the product was arrived at is not given in detail. If the multiplicand were reckoned at Rs.5,000/-, the product must be Rs.6 lakhs and is justified. If the M.A.C.A No.970 of 2006 5 multiplicand were reckoned at Rs.6,000/-, the product must be Rs.7,20,000/-. In the totality of circumstances considering the various inputs available about the nature of the income earning activities, we are satisfied that the multiplicand can be reckoned at Rs.6,000/- per mensem. Consequently the appellants will be entitled for a total amount of Rs.7,20,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. For loss of consortium, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded to the 1st claimant/wife and for loss of love and affection, a total amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded to all the claimants together. 9. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the following amounts in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of consortium (20,000 minus 10,000) : Rs.10,000/- ii) Loss of love and affection (15,000 minus 10,000) : Rs. 5,000/- iii) Loss of dependency [(6000 X 12 X 2/3 X 15) minus 6,00,000/-] : Rs.1,20,000/- .................... Total : Rs.1,35,000/- more ................... M.A.C.A No.970 of 2006 6 10. We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till payment. 11. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-