IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 236 of 2003(F) ---------------------- OPMV.657/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. NABEESA, AGED 29, W/O. KUNHUMUHAMMED, KANNANTHODY HOUSE, RIPPON POST MUPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK. 2. SHEHARBAN, AGED 13 (MINOR), D/O. LATE KUNHUMUHAMMED, REP.BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER, KANNANTHODY HOUSE, RIPPON POST, MUPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK. 3. HASSANKUTTY, AGED 66, S/O. KUNHALI, KANNANTHODY HOUSE, RIPPON POST, MUPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK. 4. KHADEESA, AGED 58, W/O. HASSANKUTTY, KANNANTHODY HOUSE, RIPPON POST, MUPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. PRADEEPKUMAR, AGED 34, S/O. AYYAPPANKUTTY, BLANGATTU HOUSE, THALAKKULAM, THRISSUR DIST. (DRIVER OF TN 43/3940 D.L.NO.1117/87, BADGE NO.576/92). 2. K.N.PATHAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O. NANJA GOWDER, 3/306-A, KALLATTY VILLAGE, FARM TEA ESTATE POST, KOTAGIRI, NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU. (R.C.OWNER OF TN 43/3940). 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., N.K.N. COMPLEX, COONOOR, TAMILNADU. (INSURER OF TN 43/33940, COVER NOT NO.CBE 028861). 4. SIBI SEBASTIAN, AGED 33, S/O. SEBASTIAN, PAYYAPALLIL HOUSE, RIPPON, MEPPADI, MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK. (OWNER-CUM-DRIVER OF KL-10/D 2917 JEEP). 5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., P.B.NO.3, HASEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI. (INSURER OF KL-10/D 2917 POLICY NO.441001/MV/96/ 4735/N3). BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R5 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY AND P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 236 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT KOSHY, J. A man aged 32 years sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 03.09.96 and succumbed to the injuries on 08.09.96. His wife, minor children and parents applied for compensation claiming an amount of Rs.13,89,000/- limited to Rs.4,50,000/-. The tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.2,30,500/- and directed the 3rd respondent insurance company to deposit the amount. In this appeal the only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. The deceased was an estate supervisor. Ext.P12 certificate shows that he was earning Rs.2,400/- per month. As he was maintaining the family and Ext.A12 was not disputed, the tribunal accepted Rs.2,400/- as monthly income. Considering the future prospects the monthly income was not refixed. But the tribunal fixed the monthly contribution to the petitioners by the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month. We are of the opinion that the tribunal erred in doing so. Even if Rs.2,400/- is accepted as M.F.A. No. 236 OF 2003 2 monthly income only 1/3rd has to be deducted for personal expenses. We fix the monthly contribution as Rs.1,600/- per month. The tribunal fixed the multiplier at 14. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that in Chinnamma George v. N.K.Raju [(2000) 4 SCC 130], the Supreme Court did not interfere, when 20 is taken as multiplier for a 36 years old victim. In the above case, the Supreme Court only found that in view of the absence of permission under Section 149, the insurance company is not allowed to contest the case on merit and there is no decision on the fixation of multiplier. Apex Court in a three member Bench decision in Smt.Supe Dei and others v. M/s.National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another [IT 2002(Suppl.1) SC 451] held that except in exceptional circumstances, the tribunal should take second schedule as guideline for calculating compensation in an application filed under Section 166 also. [See also Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director, Geological Survey of India (2003(3) SCC 148) and APSRTC v. M. Pentaiah Chary (2007 AIR SCW 5689)]. For a motor accident victim of 32 years, the multiplier under the second schedule is 17. Therefore, the compensation payable will be Rs.3,26,400/-(1,600x12x17). The M.F.A. No. 236 OF 2003 3 tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,68,000/-. The additional amount payable is Rs.1,58,400/-. It is contended that compensation awarded for loss of consortium for the young widow and for the loss of love and affection to the minor child etc. are very low. We are not enhancing the same in view of the total amount of compensation awarded. The additional amount of Rs.1,58,400/- should be deposited by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company with 7.5% interest from the date of the application till deposit over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal. On depositing the above amount, the consolidated amount of Rs.15,000/- each should be given to respondents 3 and 4, parents of the deceased. The 1st and 2nd appellants, the widow and daughter of the deceased are allowed to withdraw the balance amount in equal shares. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. J.B. KOSHY , JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. ttb M.F.A. No. 236 OF 2003 4 M.F.A. No. 236 OF 2003 5