IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 314 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.820/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. P.KOMU, POTHENKODE HOUSE, TRIPPANACHI P.O., KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. M.THAYUMMA, W/O.P.KOMU, DO. DO. 3. M.SALEENA, ALUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MUHAMMED JASIL (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SALEENA, DO. DO. 5. HASEENA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER P.KOMU. 6. SHAMEER MON (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER P.KOMU. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.SAJITH, S/O.ALAVI, SAJI NIVAS, KARAKUNNU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (DRIVER & OWNER). 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANJERI. ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.314 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are both parents, wife, minor child and siblings of a deceased person aged 25 years who suffered injuries in a motor accident and succumbed to the same on 23/12/1997. They claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The deceased was allegedly employed as an electrician. He had left behind his parents aged 50 years and 47 years, his young wife aged 20 years, his child aged 3 years and his siblings aged 13 years and 11 years. Before the tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. 2. The tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,83,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and cost. The details of the amounts awarded are given below. 1. Transport to hospital Rs.1,000/- 2. Pain and sufferings Rs.5,000/- M.A.C.A.No.314/015 2 3. Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of dependency Rs.1,70,000/- (Rs.1,250 x 12 x 2/3 x 17) Total Rs.1,83,000/- 3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the precise nature of challenge which the learned counsel for the appellants wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on the following grounds. First of all it is contended that the multiplicand (that is the monthly earnings reckoned at Rs.1,250/-) is grossly inadequate and painfully low. The deceased was aged 25 years. Even if the notional income is only Rs.1,250/- on the date of the accident, the future prospects of increase in earnings must have been taken into account. He was an electrician by profession and in any view of the matter, it should not have been lost sight of that he has got married and is having a child of his. He has undertaken the responsibility of marriage and parenthood and reasonable and proper inferences must have been drawn, in these circumstances, of the probable actual earnings as also prospective increase in the monthly earnings. M.A.C.A.No.314/015 3 4. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.2,000/- can safely be reckoned as the multiplicand applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. For loss of consortium, only a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded. The spouses were aged 25 years and 20 years. We have no hesitation to agree that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded for loss of consortium is not fair, just or reasonable. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.20,000/- more) can safely be granted under this head. 6. For loss of estate, no amount has been awarded. We are satisfied that the conventional amount of Rs.2,500/- recognized under the 2nd schedule can be awarded under this head. For loss of love and affection, no amount is seen awarded. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are entitled to an amount under this head. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- under this head can be awarded. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the interest awarded @ 6% per annum is unrealistic and not fair and just. With the help of precedents, he contends that interest M.A.C.A.No.314/015 4 must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that the amounts awarded under other heads do not warrant interference. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the following further amounts in addition to the amounts already awarded by the tribunal. 1. Loss of consortium Rs.20,000/- more (Rs.25,000/- minus Rs.5,000/-) 2. Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/- 3. Loss of dependency Rs.1,02,000/- more [(Rs.2,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 17) minus Rs.1,70,000] Total Rs.1,37,000/- more 9. It is directed that the entire amount of compensation shall be paid along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 10. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.314/015 5 M.A.C.A.No.314/015 6 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009