IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 143 of 2003() ------------------------------- OPMV.158/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS ---------------------- 1. SHRI.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHENNAN, KATTUNGAL VEEDU, ATTUPURAM KARA, PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE. 2. SMT.SUMATHI, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KATTUNGAL VEEDU, ATTUPURAM KARA, PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ------------------------- 1. SHRI.P.K.JOSE, S/O.DEVASSY, POTTEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUZHOOR P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH, IRINJALAKUDA P.O. TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R2 SRI.RAJIT FOR R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.143 OF 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated the 11th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy,J . Appellants are the unfortunate parents of a 21 year old boy who sustained injuries in a motor accident on 6.9.1996. Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the negligence of the vehicle insured by the 2nd respondent Insurance company and directed the Insurance company to deposit a total amount of Rs.1,48,800/-. Only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal. 2. According to the claimants, he was doing the work of Aluminium fabrication and was getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. In the absence of any evidence to show that he was getting Rs.4,000/- per month, tribunal fixed Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. There is no material to interfere with the MFA.143/03 2 assessment of monthly income by the tribunal. Tribunal noticed that even though deceased was 21 years old and 17 is the multiplier as per the 2nd Schedule, in a claim under 166, in the case of unmarried persons, the age of the claimants has to be looked into. Even though it was argued that in 163A application, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle need not be proved but in a claim under 166, that has to be proved. Therefore, compensation awarded should be higher than what is mentioned in the 2nd Schedule. We are unable to accept the contentions in view of the Apex Court decisions on that point. It was noticed that mother was 45 years old and father was 40 years. 13 was the apt multiplier taking guidelines from the 2nd Schedule. Tribunal did not even calculate compensation taking 13 as the multiplier and reduced multiplicand was taken after seven years. That is not intended and future cannot be predicted. However, as years go by, income was also increasing and we cannot presume that he will not support the appellants in their old age. Therefore, if the monthly income of Rs.1,500/- was taken, after deducting 1/3 rd, Rs.1,000/- was correctly fixed by the tribunal as loss of family MFA.143/03 3 contribution. 13 is the apt multiplier. If that be so, compensation payable for loss of dependency and family contribution is Rs.1,56,000/-. Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore, claimants will be entitled to additional amount of Rs.36,000/- and the above additional amount of Rs.36,000/- should be deposited by the 2nd respondent Insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit over and above the decreed amount by the tribunal. On deposit of the amount, appellants are allowed to withdraw the same in equal proportion. This appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp MFA.143/03 4 J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.143 OF 2003 ------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T 11th June, 2008