IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 200 of 2002(D) ---------------------- OPMV.688/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. PAZHASSIVEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN, F/O.KUNDHIRIKULATH KARUNAN (LATE), 55 YEARS, PURACHERY, EZHILODE P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KUNDHIRIKULATH KARTHIAYANI, W/O.KUNDHIRIKULATH KARUNAN (LATE), 50 YEARS, PURACHERRY, P.O.EZHILODE. 3. KUNDHIRIKULATH MANOHARAN, BROTHER OF KUNDHIRIKULATH KARUNAN (LATE) 19 YEARS, PURACHERRY, EZHILODE P.O.,CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK. 4. ANCHILLATH IQBAL, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, P.O.PANAPUZHA, M.M.BAZAR (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT(DELETED). 5. A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ, AHAMMED HAJI,MANGAD, KALLIASSERY P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT(DELETED). RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 22.10.2002 ON CMP NO.6708/2002 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP995 OF 2002 IN MFA 200 OF 2002 DISMISSED 17.6.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/-V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 200 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondents. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier for awarding compensation should have been based on the age of the claimants, which was 55 and 51 respectively, counsel for the respondents submitted that victim was of the age of 26 years, and therefore the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was correct. While the appellant's case is that the multiplier based on the age of the claimants is 11 under Second Schedule to the Act, we notice that multiplier, if applied based on the age of the victim, should be 18 as against 15 adopted by the Tribunal. Both sides have cited divergent decisions of the Supreme Court in support of their contentions. While the decision cited by counsel for the appellant is reported in BIJOY KUMAR DUGAR V. BIDVADHAR DUTTA, AIR 2006 SC 1255, the decision relied on by counsel for the respondents is one reported in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. V. KALPANA, (2007) 3 SCC 538. In the latter decision the Supreme Court has adopted multiplier by looking 2 at the age of the victim. A Division Bench of this Court in I. DAMODARAN V. M.K. VALSALA, (2007) 4 KHC 1044 (DB) also has awarded compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by looking at the age of the victim. In this case, it is seen that the compensation awarded is neither based on the age of the victim, nor based on the age of the claimants, because as against multiplier 11 pressed by appellant and 18 claimed by the respondents the Tribunal has awarded compensation by adopting multiplier 15. Considering the age of the victim, who was only 26 years of age, we do not find any justification to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded. However, we feel the grant of interest at 12% calls for interference. Accordingly we reduce the interest granted from 12% to 7.5 per cent. The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V. K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3