IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1525 of 2011(A) ----------------------- OPMV.340/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS -------------- 1. MARIAKUTTY, W/O.P.C.JOHN,PALLURITHI HOUSE, MALAKUNNAM P.O.,ITHITHANAM,CHANGANACHERRY 2. JOSEPH P.J, S/O.P.C. JOHN -DO- -DO- 3. LIZZY SIBY, W/O.SIBY, MOOZHAYIL HOUSE,KORORHODU P.O., 116 ACRE COLONY,MUNDAKAYAM BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. RAJEEV RAJAN, S/O.RAJAN, VALLYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR PULINATTU BOAT JETTY, NATTAKOM. 2. AFASAL U.M, S/O.MOHAMMAD, SAFLA MANZIL, PUZHAVATHU, PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD; COCHIN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1525 of 2011-A ***************************** Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. The claim was lodged by parents of a deceased person, aged 37 years, a bachelor. He was allegedly employed as a mechanic and was earning an income of Rs.3,333/- per mensem. He suffered injuries in a motor accident, which took place on 23.03.2007 and succumbed to those injuries later. His parents staked the claim for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The 1st claimant/father expired during the pendency of the proceedings. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of a total amount of Rs.1,26,585/- as compensation as per the details given in para.11 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500.00 2 Medical expenditure Rs. 2,085.00 3 Loss of dependency Rs.1,20,000.00 (24,000X5) 4 Loss of estate Rs. 2,000.00 Total Rs.1,26,585.00 M.A.C.A No.1525 of 2011-A 2 The 3rd respondent/insurance company has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. 2. The 3rd respondent, though served, has not chosen to enter appearance. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The impugned award is assailed on the short ground that the quantum of compensation has not been calculated and ascertained in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. This is the short plank of challenge. 3. The Tribunal had ascertained the quantum of compensation payable for loss of dependency by independently resorting to the multiplier-multiplicand method. Rs.3,000/- was accepted as the monthly income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the age of the parents, 5 alone was taken as the multiplier and the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was fixed as the quantum of compensation payable by pressing into service the multiplier-multiplicand method (3000X12X2/3X5), ie. Rs.1,20,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has grossly erred in ascertaining the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency by resort to the multiplier- multiplicand method. The principles in National Insurance M.A.C.A No.1525 of 2011-A 3 Co.Ltd. V. P.C.Chacko [2011(3) KLT 693] have not been followed by the Tribunal. In a claim under Section 163A of the M.V Act, the extent of dependency is irrelevant and the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained from the table given under clause 1 of the Second Schedule, contends counsel. We completely agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. The deceased was a personson, aged 35 years. He therefore falls under horizontal column No.6 in the table given under clause 1 of the Second Schedule. The Tribunal has accepted that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. He therefore is a person falling under the category of persons earning annual income above Rs.24,000/- up to Rs.36,000/-. To them vertical column No.12 of the table applies. Horizontal column No.6 and vertical column No.12 meet and at that point 540 is stipulated to be the quantum of compensation payable in “rupees in thousands”. Rs.5,40,000/- is the amount so specified in the table under clause 1 of the Second Schedule. From this, 1/3 of the amount is to be deducted following the mandate of the note under the table. This in turn means that Rs.3,60,000/- (5,40,000X2/3) is the amount payable under clause 1. In addition to that, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the M.A.C.A No.1525 of 2011-A 4 heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate and medical expenses would also be payable. The amounts awarded under other heads ae correct and do not amount appellate interference. 5. It is thus seen that instead of the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency under clause 1 of the Second Schedule. They would then be entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.3,60,000/- minus Rs.1,20,000/-) as compensation under Section 163A of the M.V Act. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that only an amount of Rs.1,500/- has been awarded as cost by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have awarded cost on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943], contends the learned counsel. We agree. 7. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty thousand only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; M.A.C.A No.1525 of 2011-A 5 c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned award; d) We further direct that the appellants shall be entitled to receive proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal for the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena (supra); e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) rtr/