IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1603 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1294/2004 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. SAINABA,W/O.LATE MOHAMMED,AGED 62 YEARS, THANNICAL (KANAKKAMCHERY)HOUSE,KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, KANJIRAMATTOM. 2. NJUMA,D/O.LATE MOHAMMED,AGED 36 YEARS, THANNICAL (KANAKKAMCHERRY)HOUSE,KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, KANJIRAMATTOM. 3. SIYAD,S/O.LATE ,MOHAMMED,AGED 38 YEARS, THANNICAL (KANAKKAMCHERY)HOUSE,KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, KANJIRAMATTOM. 4. SAJITHA,W/O.ABDUL SALAM,AGED 42 YEARS, THANNICAL (KANAKKAMCHERY)HOUSE,KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, KANJIRAMATTOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH SRI.A.S.BRIJESH SMT.ROOPA RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. P.J.JACOB,PEEJAY CONSTRUCTION, PARAMBATHUSERRY,EDAPPALLY.P.O,KOCHI-682 030. 2. SURESHMON.T.K,S/O.KUNJU,THARAMATTATHIL HOUSE,THENGODU.P.O,EDACHIRA,KOCHI-12. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRIPUNITHURA-682 030.. ADV. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY FOR R-3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1603 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimants are the appellants. They are the mother and siblings of a deceased person by name Noushad. He had suffered injuries in a road traffic accident which took place on 3/1/04. He succumbed to those injuries while he was undergoing treatment. It is claimed that the deceased was a Salesman earning an income of `3,300/- per mensem. The claim was staked under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal (against the claim limited to `5,00,000/-) by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of `3,43,500/- as per the details given in paragraph-7 of the impugned award which we extract below: Head Amount awarded Compensation for loss of dependency and estate (3000 x 12 x 18 x ½) 3,24,000/- Transportation expenses .. Funeral expenses 2,000/- Medical Expenses 15,000/- M.A.C.A. No. 1603 of 2011 -: 2 :- Head Amount awarded For pain and sufferings .. Compensation for loss of love and affection .. Loss of consortium .. Loss of estate 2,500/- Total Claim is limited to Rs.5,00,000/- 3,43,500/- 2. The insurance company has been made entirely liable to satisfy the award. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The challenge is raised against the impugned award on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants challenge is against the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal, ignoring the dictum in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. P.C. Chacko (2011 (3) KLT 693), has proceeded to ascertain the quantum of compensation by employing multiplier-multiplicand method. In a claim under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of death of a deceased person it is not necessary and it is impermissible for the Tribunal to calculate the quantum of compensation payable by independently resorting to the multiplier-multiplicand method. M.A.C.A. No. 1603 of 2011 -: 3 :- The Tribunal is bound to follow the table given under Clause (1) of the Second Schedule and ascertain the quantum of compensation payable. Instead of doing that, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation for loss of dependency at `3,24,000/- (3000 x 12 x 18 x ½). 4. We find force in that contention. It is now settled that in a claim under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act in respect of death, the multiplier is irrelevant and the quantum of compensation payable has to be ascertained directly from the table given under Clause (1). The deceased was a person aged 29 years. He therefore belongs to the group of persons aged above 25 years not exceeding 30 years specified in horizontal column No.4. The Tribunal had accepted `3,000/- to be his monthly income. If that be so, the deceased falls under the vertical column No.12 dealing with persons earning an annual income above `24,000/- upto `36,000/-. The 4th horizontal column and 12th vertical column meet and at that point, `6,12,000/- is described to be the amount of compensation payable. From this, 1/3rd has to be deducted following the mandate of the note given under the table in Clause (1). In addition to that, an amount of `19,500/-, has awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Funeral expenses (`2,000/-); Medical expenses (limited to `15,000/-) and loss of estate (`2,500/-) will be payable. The Tribunal instead of M.A.C.A. No. 1603 of 2011 -: 4 :- awarding an amount of `4,08,000/- (612000 x 2/3) has awarded only an amount of `3,24,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. We agree that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of `84,000/- (`4,08,000/- minus `3,24,000) under Clause (1) of the Second Schedule. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant, of course, contends that the Tribunal was wrong in accepting `3,000/- to be the monthly income against the claim made by the appellant that the deceased was earning an income of `3,300/- per mensem. We are satisfied that the said conclusion on facts arrived at by the Tribunal does not warrant appellate interference. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of `84,000/- (Rupees eighty four thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 7. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of `84,000/- (Rupees eighty four thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. M.A.C.A. No. 1603 of 2011 -: 5 :- (d) We make it clear that proportionate cost shall be worked out as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). (e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge