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 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 2500 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1402/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. P.V.PRASANNAKUMARI, D/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELAM DESOM, P.O.MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PRANAV.K, S/O. PADMANABHAN (MINOR), AGED 16 YEARS, THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND P.V.PRASANNAKUMARI, D/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 32 YEARS, -DO- -DO- -DO-. 3. PRATHYASHA.K, D/O.PADMANABHAN (MINOR), AGED 13 YEARS, THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND P.V.PRASANNAKUMARI, D/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 32 YEARS, -DO- -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, MAHE. (INSURER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE KL 11/E 7244) ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2500 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1402/2001 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, who are the wife and two minor children of deceased Padmanabhan, challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 26, 2008 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,51,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of deceased Kandoth Padmanabhan in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these : Deceased Kandoth Padmanabhan was an agriculturist aged 40 at the time of accident and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month, according to the claimants. Claimants are his wife and two minor children. On April 17, 2001, while deceased Padmanabhan was walking along the side of the road, he was knocked down from behind by a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-11/E 7244 ridden by the second respondent. MACA.No.2500/2008 2 Deceased Padmanabhan sustained fatal head injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in Unity Health Complex, Mangalore on April 21, 2001. According to the claimants, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle by second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the dependants and legal heirs of the deceased. Claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle by second MACA.No.2500/2008 3 respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,51,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The claimants have now come up 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 second respondent is 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 Rs.3,51,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under : Loss of dependency - Rs. 3,20,000/- Loss of consortium - Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 12,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses - Rs. 3,000/- Other eligible counts - Rs. 1,000/- 8. Counsel for the appellants/claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the loss of dependency, for loss of love and MACA.No.2500/2008 4 affection, for loss of consortium and for pain and suffering endured by the deceased. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- which works out to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- was taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 3,20,000/- for the loss of dependency. As the deceased was an agriculturist, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 3,500/- which works out to Rs. 42,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 28,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16. As the deceased was aged 40 at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier that can be adopted is 17. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,76,000/- ( 28,000 x 17). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-. 10. For loss of love and affection, Rs. 12,000/- was awarded by MACA.No.2500/2008 5 the Tribunal which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into account the age of the first claimant and the tender age of the children, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.13,000/-. 11. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, which appears to be very low. Taking into account the age of the first claimant widow, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 12. For the pain and suffering endured by the deceased, Rs. 5,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred on April 17, 2001 and the deceased died on April 21, 2001, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and MACA.No.2500/2008 6 therefore are not disturbing the same. 13. In the result, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a 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 sv. MACA.No.2500/2008 7