IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 323 of 2006 ---------------------- OPMV.393/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA,WATANAD .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. GOVINDAN, S/O. LATE SANKARAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PONPANAL, MANANTHAVADY P.O. KANIYARAM. 2. RAJAMMA, W/O. GOVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DO. 3. SHEELA, D/O. GOVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DO. 4. SOBHA, D/O. GOVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DO. 5. RAJANI, D/O. GOVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DO. 6. BINDU, D/O. GOVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DO. 7. K.A. RAJI, S/O. ELIYAS, KOCHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KELAKAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. MACA : 323/06 8. M.D. GEORGE, S/O. DEVASSIA, MOOKKILIKATTU P.O., KANICHAR, KELKAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R7 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (MANNAR) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.323 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that the multiplier applied in calculating compensation for loss of dependency i.e. 18 is wrong. We find force in this contention of the appellant because the age of the parents shown in the claim petition is 60 and 55 respectively. However, it is not known whether they have crossed the age stated in the claim petition. Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that when age of the mother is shown as 55, it should be taken that she has completed 55 years of age. Going by this argument, the eligible multiplier is 8 and not 18 applied by the MACT. Even though there is a mistake in the multiplier applied, we feel modification is required on the multiplicant because deceased who was aged 26 years at the time of accident was said to be a mechanic engaged in assembling of Dish Antenna. The monthly income fixed by MACT was only Rs.2,000/- which in the year 2002 is very low. We 2 are of the view that claimants are entitled to have the income of the deceased fixed at much higher amount. Even though counsel for the Insurance Company opposed increase of income by this court on the ground that no appeal is filed by respondents, we do not think this objection is tenable because probably the respondents did not file appeal because the total compensation awarded was acceptable to them. Of course it should have been possible for the respondents to file a Cross Appeal after receipt of this appeal filed by the Insurance Company. However, we do not think this technicality should stand in the way of our doing justice to the parties, more so because the exercise in which MACT was engaged was to arrive at the correct compensation payable by the Insurance Company for the death of son of claimants 1 and 2. We, therefore, refix the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and after deducting one third towards personal expenses, net loss of dependency is Rs.24,000/- per annum. Applying the correct multiplier respondents will be entitled to compensation for loss of dependency at Rs.1,92,000/- as against Rs.2,88,000/- granted by the MACT. Besides the above, we find that MACT has not granted any compensation for loss of love and affection for respondents 1 and 2 whose only son was the deceased, all others being sisters of the deceased. We feel 3 respondents have to be compensated for the loss of love and affection for the death of son of respondents 1 and 2 and the only brother of remaining respondents. We grant a compensation of Rs.50,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each for each of the sisters and Rs.10,000/- for the parents. Since we have granted separate compensation for loss of love and affection to respondents 3 to 6, MACT will release Rs.10,000/- each and proportionate interest to each of them. Appeal stands allowed by modifying compensation as above. Even though we notice that interest granted is only at 6% p.a., we do not want to enhance it suo moto because of the compensation granted by us as above in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms