IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 211 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.3227/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... : APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. P.SANKARANKUTTY MENON, AGED 71 YEARS, SON OF PADMANABHA MENON, PONOTH HOUSE, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 2. C.SUMATHI, AGED 63 YEARS, WIFE OF P.SANKARANKUTTY MENON, JANAKIMANDIR, THEKKUMBHAGOM, TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 301. 3. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, SON OF P.SANKARANKUTTY MENON, JANAKIMANDIR, THEKKUMBHAGOM, TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 301. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. C.J.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, CHATHANKARIYIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY. 2. E.V.JOHNY, S/O.ULAHANNAN, EDAMANA HOUSE, WEST OF PATHAM MILE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-682 002. 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TRIPUNITHURA. ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R4 SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN FOR R1,2 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON 17/2/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: FEBRUARY 17, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The claimants in OP(MV) 3227/1999 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam are the appellants in this appeal filed under sec,173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They have claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the loss sustained by them on account of the death of one Gopakumar in a motor accident. Appellants 1 and 2 are his parents and the 3rd appellant is the brother of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,47,300/-. In this appeal they have challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The facts in brief are these: On May 24, 1999 at about 7.30 a.m. deceased Gopakumar was pillion riding on a motorcycle along Tripunithura - Poothota road. When he reached near the Hill Palace Police Station, a bus driven by the 2nd respondent came at a high speed from behind and dashed against the motorcycle. Gopakumar fell on the road side and the tyre of the bus ran over him. He died on the way to the hospital. The deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident and was working as a Machine Operator in the Tata M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E 2 Tetley Ltd. and getting a monthly salary of Rs.2500/-. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending bus remained absent and were set ex parte. The 3rd respondent Insurer of the offending vehicle admitted that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The 4th respondent, the insurer of the motorcycle, would contend that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the bus. 3. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the claimants and the contesting 3rd respondent. On the side of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A17 were marked. On the side of the contesting 3rd respondent, Ext.B1 was marked. 4. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the 2nd respondent and granted a compensation of Rs.1,47,300/-. The 4th respondent, the insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident, was exonerated from the liability. The claimants have challenged the quantum of compensation in this appeal. 5. The only question which arises for consideration is whether M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E 3 the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The accident is not disputed. It is also not challenged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the 2nd respondent and that the offending bus was covered by a valid insurance policy with the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. 7. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as follows: Transportation Rs. 2,500/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,500/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of dependency Rs.1,22,300/- ------------------------ Total Rs.1,47,300/- ============= 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court has taken the monthly contribution of the deceased as one half of his salary which is not proper and that as the deceased was aged only 28 years, the multiplier adopted as 8 by the Tribunal is very low. It is not disputed that the deceased was employed as a Workshop Manager in Tata Tetley Ltd. and was drawing a salary of Rs.2500/- per month. It is also proved by Ext.A17 salary certificate. The Tribunal has deducted one-third of it for his personal expenses and another one- third on the ground that after marriage his contribution to his parents M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E 4 would be much less, but made a deduction of only one-half of the salary. This approach appears to be not correct in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Varma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another {2009 (6) SCC 121}. We feel that towards the personal expenses of the deceased, a deduction of one-third of his salary can be allowed. No further deduction, in our view, is proper taking into consideration the future prospects of his promotion in his employment. Thus considered, after making a deduction of one-third from his salary, his contribution to his family per month would be Rs.1700/- per month. 9. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 8 which, in our view, is very low. He was aged only 28 at the time of the accident. Though claimants 1 and 2 are aged 63 and 58 at the time of the accident, the 3rd claimant was aged only 25. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we feel that a multiplier of 12 would be reasonable in this case. Thus calculated, towards loss of dependency, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.2,44,800/- (1700 x 12 x 12). Thus, towards loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.97,500/-. Regarding the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, we find it to be reasonable. Therefore we are not disturbing the same. In the result, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E 5 additional compensation of Rs.97,500/-. They are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent shall deposit the amount within one month from this date. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-