IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 784 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.1199/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. C. GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, V.G.BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28. 2. L. VIJAYAMMA,W/O.C.GOPINATHAN NAIR, V.G. BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI, PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA(VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28. 3. BINDHU.V.G., W/O. C.GOPINATHAN NAIR, V.G.BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI, PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA(VIA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.DEEPU S.NAIR FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.A.SIRAJ FOR R1 TO R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The insurance company is the appellant. The parents and the unmarried sister of the deceased, a young man aged 26 years, are the claimants. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of their son/brother who succumbed to the injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 23/4/2004. The deceased was a bachelor. He had suffered multiple injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on the date of the accident itself. His father, the 1st claimant, was aged 60 years; his mother, the 2nd claimant, was aged 49 years and his sister, the 3rd claimant, was aged 28 years. The Tribunal against a total claim of `15,00,000/- (limited to), awarded a total amount of `7,57,428/- as per the details given in paragraph-23 of the impugned award which we extract below: M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded Rs. Basis - vital details in a nut shell 1 Transportation to the expenses 2000 Reasonable estimate made 2 Expenses for obsequies 5000 Reasonable estimate made 3 Damages to clothing 500 Reasonable estimate made 4 Compensation for pain and suffering 10000 15 anti-mortem injuries 5 Compensation for loss of earning power and dependency benefit 719928 Rs.5000 x 2/3 x 12 x 18 6 Compensation for loss of love and affection 10000 7 Compensation for loss of estate 10000 8 Compensation for mental agony ... Total 757428 With interest at 7.5% from 28/6/04 till realisation with costs Rs.2000/- Limited to Rs.15,00,000/- The compensation was directed to be paid along with interest at 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the parents/claimants alone. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance company as also the learned counsel for the claimants. The learned counsel for the insurance company assails the impugned award on the following grounds: M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011 -: 3 :- (i) The Tribunal erred grossly in reckoning 18 as the multiplier to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable for loss of dependency. (ii) The Tribunal erred in reckoning only 1/3rd of the earnings of the deceased as necessary for his personal expenses. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the other hand contends that the impugned award does not, at any rate, warrant interference inasmuch as the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating compensation for loss of dependency does not realistically take into account the future prospects in employment of the deceased, a young man aged about 26 years. The counsel further submits that the Tribunal was grossly in error in not accepting the oral evidence of P.W.1 supported by Ext.A14 certificate to prove the employment and the income of the deceased as skilled troupe member of the Muthukad Magical Entertainers. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Both sides appear to rely on the binding precedent in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121). We are in ready agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier applicable to the elder claimant and not the younger deceased has to be taken M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011 -: 4 :- into reckoning while ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable for loss of dependency. It is unnecessary to advert to the precedents. The multiplier applicable to the elder dependent/claimant has certainly got to be taken as the elder claimant who has to be compensated for loss of dependency cannot aspire to claim compensation for a longer period than the period for which he would have lived merely because the deceased happened to be younger. We are in agreement that one half of the amount has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of a bachelor like the deceased in this case. We are of the opinion that the mere fact that an unmarried sister who is evidently dependent on her parents has also been arrayed as one of the claimants cannot persuade to us to accept 1/3rd as the personal expenses of the deceased, the incidental dependence of the unmarried sister on the deceased notwithstanding. 5. We do take note of the circumstance that the deceased was a member of the troupe of the Muthukad Magical Entertainers. We have indications to suggest that he was a qualified plumber/wireman. We have indications also to suggest that he was part of the magic troop involved in magical entertainment also. While we agree that the multiplier chosen by M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011 -: 5 :- the Tribunal is wrong (the Tribunal has taken the multiplier 18 merely looking at the age of the deceased), we are satisfied that the total income of the deceased reckoned by the Tribunal is also unsatisfactory. We agree that only one half of the earning of a deceased bachelor alone can be held to be available for his parents/dependents. We do further note that the Tribunal has not given due credit for the improvement in prospects of the very young deceased. It was very likely that he would have gone up the ladder and would have started earning much higher amount as years rolled by. 6. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that `6,000/- can be reckoned as monthly income, one half can be deducted from the monthly earnings for his personal expenses and that 50% increase can be awarded to duly accommodate the prospective improvement in earnings. We are further satisfied that 13 which is multiplier applicable to younger of the two parents (mother aged 49 years) has also got to be taken. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled to an amount of `7,0,2000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and two thousand only) (`6000/- x 150/100 x 12 x 13 M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011 -: 6 :- x 50/100) towards compensation for loss of dependency. This means that the total amount awarded to the claimants will have to be reduced by `17,928/- (`7,19,928/- minus `7,0,2000/-). 8. In the result: (a) This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. (b) The impugned award is upheld in all other respects. (c) It is held that the appellant would be entitled only for a total amount of `7,39,500/- (Rupees seven lakhs and thirty nine thousand and five hundred only) i.e., `17,928/- - less than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011 -: 7 :-