IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MFA.No. 1029 of 1996() ---------------------- OPMV.1610/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, PALLIYAMBILTHEKKETHIL, KURATTIKKADU, MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SUGATHAN, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU KUZHIVILA, VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, NEAR KUZHIVILA TEMPLE, CHARAKKATTUCHERRY, PALAYAM. 3. VIJAYAN, S/O.NEELAKANTAN, ROBI BHAVAN, THAZHAMEL WARD, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. * 4. NOWSHAD, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, KOMALATHU VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, KADATHOOR, NEAR KULASEKHARAPURAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KOLLAM. (THE NAME OF R4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER DT. 22.2.2001 IN CMP.NO.1229/2001) 5. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, UTHRADAM BUILDING, P.B.NO.5, Q.S.ROAD, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A. No.1029 of 1996 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ramachandra Menon, J. The death of the wife of the first appellant (mother of the second appellant) in a road traffic accident was sought to be compensated by filing the claim petition before the Tribunal. 2. In fact, the accident occurred on 25.5.1994, when a Trucker in which the deceased was traveling along with several other persons collided with a KSRTC Bus, owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 respectively, collided with each other, causing fatal injuries leading to the death of the deceased, as stated above, and also casuality to some other passengers, which led to separate claim petitions. All the above claim petitions were considered and tried together by the Tribunal by way of joint trial. 3. The claim preferred by the appellants attributing M.F.A.No.1029 of 1996 2 negligence mainly on the driver of the KSRTC bus was sought to be resisted by the owner and driver of the bus disputing the negligence and rather trying to attribute the same on the driver of the Trucker in which the deceased was traveling at the relevant time. Almost similar rival contentions were raised by the fifth respondent, the Insurer of the Trucker, as well. The evidence in the instant case consists of the oral testimony given by the first appellant as PW.1, coupled with other police/medical records. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a clear finding that the accident was only because of the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus. 4. With regard to the quantum of compensation payable, the evidence adduced from the part of the appellants/claimants has been discussed by the Tribunal in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Award. Even though the claimants had a case that the deceased was having a monthly income of not less than Rs.2500/-, (allegedly by virtue of the income generated from a Flour Mill, a Nursery run by her, and also by virtue of her engagement in the field of Animal Husbandry), no M.F.A.No.1029 of 1996 3 documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said factual position. On the other hand, the husband of the deceased (none other than the first appellant herein) adduced evidence as PW.1 and clearly deposed that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.900/- and that she was aged 42 years. The Tribunal reckoned the entire income of Rs.900/- per month, as deposed by PW.1. With regard to the fixation of multiplier, the Tribunal held that the appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’, and accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,800/- was awarded as ‘loss of dependency’, besides awarding Rs.10,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’; Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ to the first petitioner/appellant; Rs.10,000/- towards of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.3,000/- towards ‘funeral and ancillary expenses’, thus granting a total of Rs.1,33,000/- , which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from 24.11.1994, i.e., the date of filing of the claim petition, along with a cost of Rs.6000/-. The liability was specifically mulcted on the shoulders of the first respondent, KSRTC. This appeal is for enhancement of the compensation. M.F.A.No.1029 of 1996 4 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are abysmally low and there is absolutely no reason in limiting the monthly contribution to the family as Rs.600/-, as the monthly income claimed in the petition as Rs.2500/-. The learned counsel also submits that the multiplier ‘14’ adopted by the Tribunal is not correct or proper, and that taking note of the age of the son, as 25 years, the appropriate multiplier would have been 18. 6. With regard to the monthly income and the multiplicand adopted by the Tribunal, as noted herein before, the projected monthly income as shown in the claim petition was Rs.2500/-, whereas the first appellant himself, when examined as PW.1, conceded that the deceased was getting only a sum of Rs.900/- as the monthly income. This being the position, there cannot be any further dispute as to the monthly income, since the same stands conceded from the part of the appellants and further that the entire amount, as above, has been reckoned by the Tribunal. After deducting one-third towards the probable personal expenses, the remaining two-third has been taken for M.F.A.No.1029 of 1996 5 computing the figures, which hence is correct and proper. 7. With regard to the question of multiplier, the Law stands settled by virtue of the verdict passed by the Apex Court in T.N.State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya and others (2005 (6) SCC 236) holding that the appropriate multiplier has to be adopted based on the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher. Considering the age of the deceased (42 years), the multiplier could have been ‘15’, but since the first appellant, husband of the deceased, was of 47 years, the proper multiplier that could have been reckoned was only ‘13’, whereas, the Tribunal has reckoned the multiplier of ‘14’. With regard to the age of the second appellant, i.e., the son, true, he was aged only 25 years and the multiplier reckoning his age could have been ‘18’. But it has to be borne in mind that within a few years, he would have married leading an independent life and in such circumstances, he could not have stated as any further dependent on the deceased for eking out his livelihood and to maintain his separate family. This being the position, the quantum of compensation awarded by the M.F.A.No.1029 of 1996 6 Tribunal towards 'loss of dependency' does not require any modification. 8. However, we find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the 'loss of love and affection'. We find it fit and proper to awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head. Similarly, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards 'damage to clothing' and also in respect of 'transportation charges'. It is also equally true that no amount has been awarded towards any medical expenses. We are very much aware that the appellants have not produced any legally acceptable evidence so as to substantiate awarding of any amount under the above heads. But it also cannot but be observed that the appellants would have incurred atleast some expenses or suffered some damage in respect of the above heads as well. Considering the facts and circumstances, we award a consolidated sum of Rs.2000/- under the above heads. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads appear to be very much adequate and proper. M.F.A.No.1029 of 1996 7 9. In the result, the appellants are declared as entitled to get a further sum of Rs.12,000/- as additional compensation payable in respect of the death of the deceased. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 7%, from the date of filing the petition, till the same is satisfied. We direct the first respondent to deposit the said amount, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj. P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1029 of 1996 J U D G M E N T Dated: 18th December, 2009. -------------------------------