IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 1629 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.139/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. JAYAMOL THOMAS, W/O.RAJU, VARATHARA @ THEKKEVARATHARA (H), NEELAMPAROOR P.O., KURICHI KARA. DO. VILLAGE. 2. JEFF RAJU THOMAS, S/O.RAJU, (MINOR), VARATHARA @ THEKKEVARATHARA HOUSE, NEELAMPEROOR KARA, KURICHY VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER JAYAMOL THOMAS, W/O.RAJU OF DO. DO. 3. MEERA RAJU THOMAS, D/O.RAJU (MINOR), VARATHARA @ THEKKEVARATHARA HOUSE, NEELAMPEROOR P.O., KURICHY, REP. BY MOTHER JAYAMOL THOMAS OF DO. 4. THANKAMMA @ MARIAMMA THOMAS, W/O.LATE THOMAS, OF DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASHIM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. JOHN J.LUKOSE, GREEN VILLA HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (RESPONDENT NO.3 ID ADDITIONALLY IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO. 2013/03 DT. 24.3.03). ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R2 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1629 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)139/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. They are the wife, children and mother of deceased Raju Thomas who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated July 8, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs. 6,84,499/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of deceased in that accident. 2. On October 23, 2000 at about 1.15 p.m., while the deceased was pillion riding on the scooter bearing Reg.No.KL 8/L 6070 and when he reached at Kurichi Out post junction on the M.C.road, he was knocked down by the bus bearing Reg.No.KL 15/4102 driven by the first respondent. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained on the way to the hospital. Alleging negligence against the driver of the bus, the claimants filed MACA.No.1629/2004 2 the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. First respondent, the driver of the offending bus remained absent before the Tribunal. The second respondent, the owner of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting accident, but attributed negligence to the rider of the scooter. The third respondent, the insurer of offending bus filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. This O.P. was jointly tried along with other O.P. filed by the legal heirs the rider of the scooter and a common award was passed. Pws 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A19 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,84,499/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACA.No.1629/2004 3 Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,84,499/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Loss of dependency - Rs.6,59,999/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/- Loss of estate & funeral exp. - Rs. 4,500/- 8. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of compensation for loss of dependency, for loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5500/- .After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance MACA.No.1629/2004 4 amount of Rs. 3,666/- was taken as his monthly contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 6,59,999/- for loss of dependency. 10. According to the claimants, the deceased was the Managing Partner of Continental Wood Products Private Limited Company at Pallom earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He had income from agricultural business also. Ext.A14 is the copy of the Partnership deed of the company. Ext.A15 is the firm registration certificate. Ext.A16 and Ext.A17 are the income tax statements and Ext.A18 is the balance sheet. PW2 is the present Managing Partner and PW4 is the accountant of the company. PW2 proved Ext.A20 and Ext.A21(a) which show that the deceased received Rs.65,245/- as salary and Rs.5079/- towards share profits for the period 01/04/2000 to 22/10/2000. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs.8,000/- which comes to Rs. 96,000/- per annum. As there are more than three claimants, only ¼ of the income need be deducted for his personal expenses. After deducting 1/4 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of MACA.No.1629/2004 5 Rs. 72,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 which is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- ( 72,000 x 15). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- 11. No compensation is seen awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased as well as the first claimant widow, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 12. For loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the age of the claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 13. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of MACA.No.1629/2004 6 petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. 14. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1629/2004 7 MACA.No.1629/2004 8