IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 MACA.No. 1264 of 2006 -------------------------------- OPMV.843/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA ........................................ APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE ANNEXE, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: CLIAMANTS ------------------------------------------ 1. BABU, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KONNACKAL KAROTTU HOUSE, KONGANDOOR.P.O, MATTAKKARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT VANDANATHU HOUSE, CHENNAD.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SANTHI, W/O.BABU, KONNACKAL KAROTTU HOUSE, KONGANDOOR.P.O, MATTAKKARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT VANDANATHU HOUSE, CHENNAD.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SAJIKUMAR, VALLYAKALLUNGAL, MATTAKKARA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. KURUVILA VARKEY, THONUVELLIL HOUSE, MATTUMBALAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1264 OF 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th March, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A child aged five and a half years died in a motor accident and her parents (father and mother) applied for compensation. Tribunal has taken notional income as per the second schedule and 20 as the multiplier and calculated the compensation. Contention of the insrance company is that for the death of a child multiplier can be assessed only taking into account the age of the parents and it is contended that father was aged only 33 and maximum multiplier that can be taken into account is 17. It is submitted by the claimants that notional income was fixed in 1994. Total amount awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs.2,13,000/= and only Rs.2,00,000/= was awarded for loss of dependency. If Rs.15,000/= is taken as the annual income, after deducting one third amount fixed as per second schedule, loss of dependency payable is Rs.2,00,000/=, if claim was filed under section 163A. According to the claimants, when claim was filed under section 163A, negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle need not be proved. In section 166 applications, negligence of the driver has to be proved. Hence, amount payable should be higher. Here, the accident occurred in 2002, after eight years of fixation of notional income. Considering the MACA.1264/2006 2 erosion of money value, we are of the view that a higher notional income ought to have been fixed by the Tribunal. Even if Rs.24,000/= (Rs.2,000/= per month) is fixed as the yearly notional income in 2002, after deducting one third Rs.16,000/= is taken as the loss of family contribution and 15 is taken as the multiplier, the amount would have been still higher (16,000 x 15 = 2,40,000/= ). Therefore, even though multiplier adopted is very high, since the loss of family contribution taken is very low, we are of the opinion that no interference is required. Counsel for the claimants also submitted that this was the only child and for love and affection only Rs.5,000/= was awarded. Considering the total amount awarded, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the award at the instance of the insurance company. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks