IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 706 of 2009(C) ---------------------- O.P.M.V NO.1975 OF 2005 OF THE M.A.C.T, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS IN O.P.(MV)NO.1975/05 OF MACT KOTTAYAM ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN, AGED 57, S/O. THYTHOTTAM HOUSE, PULIKATTU.P.O., KILIKKATTOOR VIA KOTTAYAM NOW RESIDING AT THYTHOTTAM HOUSE, NETHALLOOR, KARUKACHAI. 2. SANTHAMMA W/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 51, DO-DO- 3. MAYA, D/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 31,DO-DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REJI ABRAHAM, SASTHAMKOVIL HOUSE, PEZHUMPARA, VADASSERIKARA, PAHTHANAMTHITTA. 2. TIBY JOSEPH, CHERIVUPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYTHALA, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNI. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the father and mother aged 54 years and 48 years and the married sister of a deceased person who was aged 26 years at the time of his death. He suffered injuries in a motor accident on 07.09.2005 and succumbed to those injuries later on the same day. He was allegedly employed as a rubber tapper. It was claimed that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. An amount of Rs.8 lakhs was claimed as compensation. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. Ext.A5 is the salary certificate of the deceased which shows that the deceased was employed by a private individual who had issued that certificate and he was getting an amount of Rs.3,300/- by way of monthly salary and Rs.50/- as allowance per day in addition to festival allowances. 2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award directing M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 2 payment of a total amount of Rs.2.61 lakhs along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment. The break up of the said award is given below. i) Pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000/- ii) Expenses for transportation : Rs. 1,000/- iii) Damage to clothing and articles : Rs. 1,000/- iv) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000/- v) Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- vi) Compensation for loss of dependency (3,000 X ½ X 12 X 13): Rs.2,34,000/- ................... Total : Rs.2,61,000/- ................... 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 mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants challenges the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal had reckoned Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income. This is M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 3 incorrect. Rs.4,000/- must have been reckoned as the monthly income, contends the counsel. Ext.A5 salary certificate is relied on. The author of that certificate has not been examined. Even going by that certificate, Rs.3,300/- is the monthly salary. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error warranting appellate interference in accepting only Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income. 4. It is then contended that only 13 has been accepted as the multiplier. Going by the age of the deceased, 18 must have been taken as the multiplier. Going by the age of the father 11 alone need be taken as the multiplier going by the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Going by the age of the mother the Tribunal had accepted the multiplier at 13. It is contended that multiplier applicable to the deceased must have been accepted. We find no merit in this contention. The claim is under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The multiplier to be adopted is that of the older of the 2 persons - deceased and claimant. The Tribunal according to us committed no error in accepting the multiplier applicable to the mother, the elder person and who is younger in age than the other claimant, ie. M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 4 father aged 54 years. The adoption of the multiplier at 13 does not, in these circumstances, call for any appellate interference. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal deducted half of the monthly income as expenses of the deceased and has reckoned only a balance amount as contribution to the claimants. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in taking that approach. It may be idle to assume that 2/3 of the amount would have been received by the parents as contribution from a young unmarried person like the deceased. In this case we further note that the Tribunal had not taken into reckoning the imminent possibility of marriage of the deceased who was aged 26 years and the possibility of depletion of contribution to the parents thereafter. It would only be reasonable to approach the question from that angle. The Tribunal appears to have taken half of the present earning as the average contribution for all the remaining years of dependency. Any alleged inadequacy in reckoning only 50% as the contribution is nullified and neutralised by the fact that for the entire remaining period of the multiplier (13 minus 2) the same amount has been accepted as contribution by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 5 In any view of the matter, we are unable to agree that the impugned award warrants interference on this ground. No other ground of challenge is raised. 6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-