IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1937 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.1970/2006 of PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. LATHA, W/O. SATHYAN, AGED 32 YEARS, 2. SHYNI, W/O. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. GHEEVARGHESE, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 70 YRS, RESIDING AT KANNUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KAITHAPOYIL P.O., THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-670 013. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WHITELINES BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-670 013. ADV. SRI.C.VIVEK FOR R1 SMT.DEEPA GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1937 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimants are the appellants. They claim to be aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. They had claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their mother, who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 03/05/2006 and succumbed to the same. Against a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the appellants, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,17,666/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 2. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is their grievance? The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erroneously assumed the annual income to be Rs.20,000/-. A higher income must have been taken into consideration for fixing the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent M.A.C.A.No.1937 of 2010 2 Insurance Company, on the contrary, contends that the claimants are adult married children of the deceased and it cannot be assumed that they were depending on the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants then contends that, at any rate, the amount awarded is, on the face of it, inadequate as can be ascertained from the fact that it is less than the compensation that would be payable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. We take note of that contention. If the claim were reckoned as one under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the appellants would have been entitled for the amount of Rs.1,28,000 (Rs.1,92,000/- x 2/3) under clause 1 of the 2nd schedule. Relevant X axis in the table would be above 55 years but not exceeding 60 years. The relevant Y axis would be 11th vertical column dealing with income above Rs.18,000/- up to Rs.24,000/-. This would mean that the appellants would be entitled for the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- under clause 1 of the second schedule. In addition they would be entitled to the amounts due under clause 3 of the second schedule. M.A.C.A.No.1937 of 2010 3 4. Under Section 163A, therefore, the appellants would be entitled for an amount of Rs.1,32,500/- as per the details shown below: i) Amount due under clause 1 Rs.1,28,000/- (Rs.1,92,000/- x 2/3) ii) Funeral expenses under clause Rs. 2,000/- 3(1) of the second schedule iii) Loss of estate under clause Rs. 2,500/- 3(3) of the second schedule Total Rs.1,32,500/- 4. That would mean that the appellants would be entitled for a further amount of Rs.14,834/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. We are satisfied that the appeal can succeed only to the above extent. 5. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.14,834/- (Rupees forteen thousand eight hundred and thirty four only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.No.1937 of 2010 4 c) We direct that interest shall be payable on the entire amount of compensation from the date of the petition to the date of deposit/realisation at the rate directed by the Tribunal. d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1937 of 2010 5 M.A.C.A.No.1937 of 2010 6 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010