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 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 2099 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.3357/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------- 1. M.S.MINI, W/O.LATE UDAYAN KUNNALAKKATTU HOUSE, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O. 2.SRUTHI,D/O.LATE UDAYAN (MINOR) KUNNALAKKATTU HOUSE, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O.,REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER M.S.MINI, DO..DO.. 3.YEDOSHA, MOTHER OF LATE UDAYAN DO..DO.. 4.UDINAL K,U, S/O.LATE UDAYAN, MINOR REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER M.S.MINI, DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. FELIX BABU, S/O.AMBROSE, PARTNER SEA AND SAND, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. J.B.BENNY, S/O.JOSEPH, NIKARHIL CHAKAPRAMABIL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY ROAD CHERANALLOOR P.O. [DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRY AS PER ORDER DATED 18.6.2010 IN I.A. NO. 1431 OF 2010] 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD COCHIN -35. ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No. 2099 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT ----------------- Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.3357/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. They are the wife, two minor children and mother of deceased Udayan who died in a motor accident. In this appeal, they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 1,2008 awarding a compensation of ` 3,65,000/- for the loss caused to the claimants on account of death of deceased in that accident. 2. The accident happened on July 18,2002 at about 9.15 p.m. near Kundannoor Bye-pass Road at Ernakulam. While the deceased was walking along the side of the road, he was knocked down by a car bearing registration No. KL-2/A 6606 driven by the 2nd respondent. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Deceased was a head load worker, aged 33 at the time of accident, earning to ` 4,500/- per M.A.C.A. No. 2099 OF 2009 2 month according to the claimants. The claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of ` 8,48,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 were the owner, driver and insurer of the offending car at the time of the accident. The first respondent filed a written statement before the Tribunal admitting the accident but denied the liability. The 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy of the offending vehicle. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9(b) series 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 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a compensation of ` 3,65,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 9% per annum till realization and proportionate costs. Claimants have now come up M.A.C.A. No. 2099 OF 2009 3 in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the 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 2nd respondent and that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident are 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 ` 3,65,000/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Loss of dependency : ` 3,20,000/- Transportation : ` 2,000/- Funeral expenses : ` 3,000/- Pain and sufferings : ` 10,000/- Loss of consortium : ` 15,000/- Loss of love and affection : ` 10,000/- Loss of estate : ` 5,000/- --------------------- Total : ` 3,65,000/- ======== M.A.C.A. No. 2099 OF 2009 4 8. The counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency, loss of love and affection and on other heads. 9. The Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased as ` 30,000/- per annum ie. ` 2,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3 for the personal expenses of the deceased, balance amount of ` 20,000/- per annum was taken as his annual contribution to his family and adopted a multiplier of 16, as deceased was aged 33 at the time of accident and awarded a compensation of ` 3,20,000/- for loss of dependency. The claimant was a head load worker as evidenced by Ext. A9(b), certificate issued by the Local Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, Thripunithura. Therefore, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at ` 3,500/- which comes to ` 42,000/- per annum. As the deceased was aged 33 at the time of accident, the proper multiplier that can be adopted in this case is 17. In the light of the principles laid down in Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (A.I.R. 2009 SC 3104) we are of the view that only ¼th of the amount ie. ` 10,500/- need be deducted from the annual income M.A.C.A. No. 2099 OF 2009 5 of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The balance amount of ` 31,500/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. Thus calculated, for the loss of dependency, claimants are entitled to a compensation of ` 5,35,500/- (` 31,500x17). Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of ` 2,15,500/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of ` 10,000/- for loss of love and affection which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the age of the children, we feel that a compensation of ` 25,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of ` 15,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. In the result, the appellants/claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of ` 2,30,500/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost on the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit M.A.C.A. No. 2099 OF 2009 6 the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of 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 PKK