IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 MFA.No. 760 of 2001() --------------------- OPMV.5122/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VADAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4: --------------- 1.KUNHIBI, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.HUSSIN, RESIDING AT VERAKUNNUMMAL LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KURUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM OF KOYILANDY TALUK. 2.ASNA,AGED 8 YEARS, D/O.KUNHIBI, RESIDING AT DO. DO., REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT. (DATE OF BIRTH 16.10.1986) 3.E.MUHAMMED KOYA, S/O.POKKER, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT EDATHIL VEEDU, FLORIKKANNIL ROAD, CALICUT. 4.KURUPPINAKANDI AHAMMED KOYA, 39 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHU, SIVAPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, KARIYATHANKAVU, KOYILANDY TALUK. 5.M.K.ASHRAF,ALIKALAKATH HOUSE, S/O.MEHAMOOD, AGED 33 YEARS, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, KOVILKANDY DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.P.JAYARAJ FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R1,R2&R5 SMT.THUSHARA.V FOR R1,R2&R5 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.6317/2001 IN M.F.A.NO.760/2001 DISMISSED. 14.10.2008 SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/- K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.760 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. A 11 year old child of the 1st respondent died in a motor accident on 23.7.1994 and compensation was claimed contending that accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant Insurance company. Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,21,300/-. Coverage of insurance of the offending vehicle by the appellant Insurance company is not disputed. Only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. Tribunal though stated that Rs.100/- can be taken as the monthly income for the purpose of calculation of compensation, only Rs.1,200/- was taken as the monthly loss for calculating compensation. Then Tribunal held that 12 is the multiplier to be adopted but while calculating compensation, only 5 was taken as the multiplier. In fact mother was only 28 years old and even if mother's age is taken, 18 is the multiplier. Father was 33 years old and as per MFA.760/01 2 the 2nd Schedule, if father's age is taken, 17 is the multiplier. If the age of the child is taken, 15 is the apt multiplier as per the 2nd Schedule. Therefore, lowest multiplier of 15 could have been taken by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal has taken 5 as the multiplier while calculating compensation. Even if notional income as per the 2nd schedule is taken, Rs.15,000/- is the notional income, after deducting 1/3 rd only Rs.10,000/- can be taken as the loss of family contribution and taking 15 as the multiplier, compensation payable for dependency will be Rs.1,50,000/-. Apart from the compensation for loss of dependency, for pain and sufferings, funeral expenses etc. compensation have to be awarded. But total compensation awarded is only Rs.1,21,300/-. It is really the claimants who are aggrieved, but claimants did not file an appeal. We see no ground to interfere in the impugned award at the instance of the Insurance company and hence this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.760 OF 2001 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 14th October, 2008