IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 MFA.No. 363 of 2000() --------------------- OPMV.923/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. KUMMALIL THAZHATHETHIL SAIDALAVI S/O.KUNHALANKUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS ATHAVANAND AMSOM AND DESOM TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. THITHEERUMMA, W/O.KUMMALIL THAZHATHETHIL SAIDALAVI, AGED 52 YEARS, ATHAVANAND AMSOM AND DESOM TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3. KUMMALIL THAZHATHETHIL MOHAMMED S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 28 YEARS ATHAVANAND AMSOM AND DESOM TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 4. KUMMALIL THAZHATHETHIL SAID BILAL S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 23 YEARS ATHAVANAND AMSOM AND DESOM TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.CHADRASEKHAR SRI.B.HILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA ROAD WAYS LTD, POST BOX NO.511, ZAMSAM COLLEGE NORTH ROAD, CALICUT, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY KEZ 3771) 2. K.T. SREEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN 'SWAPNA', PO KAKKUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (DRIVER OF LORRY KEZ 3771, D/L NO. D/4275/80, BADGE NO.45/84) MFA.363/00 - 2- 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD PRAMOD BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT-673 001, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (INSURER OF LORRY KEZ 3771, POLICY NO.441001/24/615/MV/F3/4281 VALID UPTO 20.3.94) ADV. SRI.G.SREENIVASA PRABHU FOR R1 SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` M.F.A. No. 363 OF 2000 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. The claimants in OP(MV) No.923/96 are the appellants herein. The claim arises on the strength of a petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Appellants 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased who died in a motor accident. The accident took place on 5.8.1993. Appellants 3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased. 2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.58,500/-. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the multiplier adopted is inadequate and meagre. The multiplier adopted in this case is 8. The first appellant, namely the father of the deceased, was aged 55 years at the time of the accident. The second appellant was allegedly aged 48 years. Of course, appellants 3 and 4 were aged 24 and 19 respectively but they were the brothers of the deceased. Accordingly, the Tribunal adopted the age of the first appellant for MFA.363/2000 : 2 : arriving at the multiplier at 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the age of the second appellant, namely the mother, should have been adopted and if so adopted, according to her, the multiplier should have been fixed at 12. She further contends that the funeral expense awarded is too meagre. 3. As far as the funeral expense is concerned, a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded. We do not see any reason to interfere with the same. We feel, having regard to the facts of this case, the multiplier adopted ought to be fixed at 10. In the reckoning of multiplier adopted for the purpose of awarding compensation, the whole purpose is to arrive at the financial loss which is sought to be compensated. Necessarily, there is an element of guesswork involved. No doubt, normally it is the higher age to be considered as between the claimants and the deceased for fixing the multiplier. In this case, it is true that going by the age of the father, the multiplier of 8 fixed is not to be faulted. But, we cannot also overlook, having regard to the totality of the facts involved, that the multiplier of 8 would be inadequate. If we go by Schedule and if the age of the mother is reckoned, we would think MFA.363/2000 : 3 : that it would be more appropriate if we fix the multiplier as 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the multiplier is fixed as 10. There will be an enhancement of compensation in a sum of Rs.12,000/-. The enhanced compensation will bear interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of payment in favour of appellants 1 and 2. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sd/- (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge MFA.363/2000 : 4 : K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````` M.F.A. No. 363 OF 2000 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````` J U D G M E N T 25th day of May, 2009