IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 827 of 2006() ---------------------- OP (MV) NO.166/99 OF THE MACT, ALAPPUZHA. APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 IN THE OP. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.E.EYYO, S/O. OUSEPH, VELLIMANGALAM HOUSE, CHEKKIDIKKADU P.O., THAKAZHY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. ANNAMMA EYYO, W/O. EYYO V.E., DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR P., S/O. PARAMESWARAN, KOCHUVEEDU HOUSE, ANAPARAMPEL, THALAVADY. 2. PURUSHOTHAMAN K.P., THALLENGATTU HOUSE, THALAVADY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MULLACKAL BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The appellants are the parents of a minor child aged 10 years who suffered serious injuries in a motor accident and succumbed to the same after about 15 months of suffering. The claim was initially filed by the guardian in the name of the child/victim; but after the death of the child, the parents of the child have come on record as additional claimants 2 and 3. They are the appellants herein. 2. The claim was for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs. An amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was awarded as compensation by the Tribunal under the impugned award. Compensation for loss of dependency was fixed taking into account the notional income and the maximum multiplier applicable for the age group M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2006 -: 2 :- under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the appellants was requested to explain the challenge on specific grounds. The learned counsel for the appellants, first of all, contends that there are indications to show that the child was very bright and good in his studies and, in these circumstances, reckoning the multiplicand as the notional income is not justified. We are unable to accept that contention in the circumstances of this case. We are satisfied that the amount of Rs.15,000/- reckoned as the multiplicand is absolutely reasonable. The same does not warrant interference. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants next contends that the award of compensation under the head of medical expenses is too meager and unjustified. Medical bills have been produced to show that expenses of more than Rs.1,55,000/- was suffered for the treatment of the child; but without any tangible reasons, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,50,000/-. The learned counsel contends that, in fact, the Tribunal must have drawn reasonable inferences and must have taken note of the difficulties of the parents to keep vouchers for all expenditure incurred. The discretion under that head must have been exercised only to fix higher amount than the actual bills produced and under no circumstances could it have been reduced to Rs.1,50,000/- in the circumstances of this case. M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2006 -: 3 :- Considering the condition of the child after the accident and the period of hospitalisation, we are persuaded to agree that the award of an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- (i.e., Rs.15,000/- more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal) shall be fair and just. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants then contends that the expenses for the bystander has been fixed only at Rs.15,000/-. That is reckoned at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem for the bystander for a period of 15 months. The learned counsel submits that in the nature of the injuries suffered and the period of hospitalisation, the parents who are agricultural workers had also lost of earnings as they had to attend on the child. Realistically, a reasonable amount should have been awarded as expenses for the bystander. Limiting it to Rs.15,000/- though the actual receipts received from the bystander was for a higher amount is not justified, contends the counsel. We see reason in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. We are not persuaded to agree that the amounts specifically paid to the bystander should be increased from Rs.15,000/- But we are satisfied that a further amount of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded for loss of earning which the parents must have suffered as they were obliged to attend on the child. M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2006 -: 4 :- 5. We are not persuaded to interfere with the amounts awarded on any other head which we find are reasonable and just. 6. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that interest is awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned counsel argues that interest must have been awarded at least at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. We concur with the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled a further amount of Rs.25,000/- and that they are entitled for interest on the entire amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 8. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The impugned award shall stand modified to the above extent. R. BASANT (Judge) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON Nan/ (Judge) M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2006 -: 5 :-