IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 2002 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.177/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. M.T.VARKEY, S/O THOMAS, VAZHAYIL MODAMATTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.BBAVALI, PADAMALA, VIA. KARTIKULAM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 2. SOOSAMMA, W/O VARKEY VAZHAYIL MODAMAATTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.BAAVALI, PADAMALA, VIA-KARTIKULAM MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 3. BEENA GEORGE, D/O M.T.VARKEY, VAZHAYIL MODAMAATTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.BAVALI, PADAMALA, VIA-KARTIKULAM MANANTHAVADY TALUK (3RD PETITIONER BEING MINOR REP. GUARDIAN FATHER MR. VARKEY, S/O LATE THOMAS, VAZHAYIL MODAMATTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.BAVALI, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RATHEESH, S/O BHASKARAN, MUKADEL HOUSE, MULLANKAVU, PAYYAMPALLY P.O., MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 2. GIJI CYRIL, UPPUVEETTIL HOUSE, PAYYAMPALLY P.O., MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KALPETTA. ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No. 2002 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the parents aged 51 years and 45 years and the minor sister aged 12 years of the deceased, who was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. He succumbed to the injuries on the date of the accident itself, ie.14.12.2000. It was claimed that he was a conductor by profession. His conductor's licence was produced as Ext.A3. It was asserted that his monthly income was Rs.5,000/-. 2. Before the Tribunal there was evidence of the 1st appellant as PW1. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The Branch manager of the insurance company was examined as RW1. The insurer was absolved from the liability. 3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,29,000/- as compensation as per the details given below which appear in para.9 of the impugned award. M.A.C.A. No. 2002 of 2007 2 i) Transport to hospital : Rs. 1,000/- ii) Pain and suffering : Rs. 2,000/- iii) Love and affection : Rs. 15,000/- iv) Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/- v) Dependency : Rs.2,08,000/- (2000 X 12 X 2/3 X 13) .................... Total : Rs.2,29,000/- .................... 4. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on 2 specific grounds. He contends that multiplicand (monthly earnings of the deceased- a person holding a driving licence) was reckoned only at Rs.2,000/- by the Tribunal. This is incorrect. Reasonable and fair inferences ought to have been drawn about income even in the absence of better evidence. In these circumstances, the multiplicand awarded is totally unsatisfactory. The same may be modified and the compensation for dependency may accordingly be worked out afresh. 5. We note that going by the age of both the parents, multiplicand which is to be accepted is 13 and the same has been accepted by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged 22 years and M.A.C.A. No. 2002 of 2007 3 it is only reasonable to assume that within half of a decade he would have got married. Thereafter the contribution to the parents must necessarily have reduced. The Tribunal did not take into account and discuss all these circumstances separately and specifically. But evidently bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances the Tribunal reckoned the multiplicand at Rs.2,000/- only. We are not satisfied that the course adopted by the Tribunal is in any way unjust or improper. The same does not at any rate warrant appellate interference. Taking into account the circumstance that the same multiplicand has been accepted for all persons of aged 51 years and 45 years fro the entire period of 13 years, we are satisfied that no interference is warranted. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants then submits that for pain and suffering, only an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded as compensation. Notwithstanding the fact that the death had taken place on the date of the accident, considering the nature of injuries reasonable amount must have been awarded under the head loss of pain and suffering, contends the counsel. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.7,500/- under M.A.C.A. No. 2002 of 2007 4 that head would be absolutely reasonable. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other heads deserves appellate interference/modification. 7. The counsel finally contends that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. Relying on precedents the counsel contends that interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.5,500/- [7,500 minus 2,000] (Rupees Five thousand and five hundred only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by Tribunal. We further direct that the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till payment. 14. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-