IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 MACA.No. 1621 of 2008() ----------------------- OP(MV).594/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS; -------------------------- 1. K.C.KUMARAN, 2. SANTHA, W/O.KUMARAN 3. BABU, S/O.KUMARAN 4. SHEELA, D/O.KUMARAN 5. SHYLA, D/O.KUMARAN 6. SHEEJA, D/O.KUMARAN ALL ARE RESIDING AT KANNOTH HOUSE, THONIKULAM, P.O.PERINJANAM, KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. SUNDARAN, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, PALAKKAL VEETTIL, P.O.THAMBANKADAVU, THALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. GIRISH, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, KANICHIVEETIL HOUSE, P.O.THAMBANKADAVU, THALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~== M.A.C.A. No. 1621 of 2008 =~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~== Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimants in O.P.(MV) No.594 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 28, 2007 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,74,500/- for the loss caused to the claimants, on account of the death of one Shaji in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:- Deceased Shaji was aged 24 at the time of the accident. He was a Coconut Climber and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, according to the claimants. On February 22, 2005 at about 8.30 p.m. Shaji was riding a motor cycle. When he reached at Edamuttam Junction, another motor cycle bearing registration No.KL8-T 852, ridden by the second respondent, came at a high speed MACA 1621/2008 2 and dashed against the motor cycle ridden by Shaji. Shaji sustained serious injuries and he died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The claimants are his parents, brother and sisters. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor cycle by the second respondent. The first respondent as the owner, second respondent as the rider and third respondent as the insurer of the offending motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and rider of the offending motor cycle, filed a written statement, admitting the accident, but contending that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased. The third respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement, admitting the policy. 4. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimants and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the MACA 1621/2008 3 Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,74,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The claimants have come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned 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 in this appeal is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation? 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,74,500/- The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transportation : Rs. 1,000/- Damages to clothing : Rs. 500/- MACA 1621/2008 4 Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of dependency : Rs.1,28,000/- Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/- ------------------ Rs.1,74,500/- ======== 8. The learned counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of compensation awarded for loss of dependency and for the loss of estate. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses Rs.16,000/- per annum was taken as contribution to the family and adopted a multiplier of 8 and awarded Rs.1,28,000/- for the loss of dependency. The deceased was aged 24 at the time of the accident. According to the claimants, he was a Coconut Cliber. But, no evidence was adduced by them to prove the same. Even then it was nobody’s case that the deceased was not working at all. Even an unskilled labourer used to get Rs.100/- per day, as observed by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi and others V. Mohammad Tabbar and another, 2008 ACJ 1488. Therefore, we feel that the monthly income MACA 1621/2008 5 of the deceased can reasonably be fixed at Rs.3,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.2,000/- can be taken as his monthly contribution to his family. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the age of the parents of the deceased, we feel that a multiplier of 10 would be reasonable in this case. Thus, calculated for the loss of dependency claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 10). Thus, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- on this count. 9. Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, 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/-. Regarding the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. Regarding the apportionment of the compensation MACA 1621/2008 6 amount and disbursement of the same, the direction of the Tribunal will stand. 10. In the result, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-. They are entitled to interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending motor cycle shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment before the Tribunal with notice to the claimants. The claimants are entitled to proportionate costs. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn