IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 2213 of 2008 ----------------------- OPMV.27/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ PREMALATHA.P, W/O.LATE SANTHOSH.K.K, AGED 23 YEARS, PADUVELAN HOUSE, KALLIYAD, PARIKKALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOSEPH SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SREENIVASAN.K.P, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, EDACHERI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.ULIYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. M.A.ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.UMMER ZEENATH MANZIL, KATHIROOR.P.O, THALASSERI, KANNUR DIST. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.2213 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. She claimed compensation for the loss suffered by her as a result of the motor accident which took place on 05/09/2002 in which her husband Santhosh Kumar suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. Before the tribunal, the parents of the said Santhosh Kumar had also lodged a separate claim. Both claims were taken up together for consideration. The tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned common award. Against a claim of Rs.5,00,000/- staked by the claimant/wife and Rs.4,00,000/- staked by the parents of the deceased, the tribunal proceeded to award a total amount of Rs.3,79,000/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 13 of the award which we extract below; Sl.No. Head Amount (Rs.) 1. Loss due to dependency 3,40,000/- (Rs.2500/- x 12 x 2/3 x 17) 2. Transport charges 2,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 2,000/- 4. Loss of estate 5,000/- 5. Loss of consortium 15,000/- 6. Loss of love and affection 10,000/- 7. Pain and suffering 5,000/- Total 3,79,000/- MCA 2213/2008 2 2. We do first of all note that the parents of the deceased have not been arrayed as parties to the appeal. The accident took place on 05/09/2002. The impugned award was passed on 04/03/2008 and this appeal has been pending from 29/09/2008. Ideally, the parents of the deceased must have been arrayed as parties. They have not preferred any appeal, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the parents of the deceased were not arrayed as parties in this appeal only because they were not parties to O.P.(M.V.)No.27/03, the claim petition filed by the appellant. The appellant has no objection whatsoever against the directions of the tribunal being implemented. The tribunal had awarded 60% of the total amount of compensation to the appellant herein, 10% to the father of the deceased and 30% to the mother of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant stipulates that even the enhanced amount can be apportioned on the same principle and the appellant does not want to dispute the same. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to wait again insisting on the impleadment of the parents of the deceased. 3. We now come to the ground of challenge. The challenge is raised only against quantum of compensation awarded. MCA 2213/2008 3 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant now wants to assail the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency alone. An amount of Rs.3,40,000/- has been awarded and that has been awarded taking the monthly income of Rs.2500/-; personal expenses of the deceased to be 1/3rd of his income and 17 as the multiplier. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that Rs.2500/- reckoned as the monthly income is grossly and painfully inadequate. Counsel relies on the presumption of prudence which is available for the courts from 1994 under clause (6) of the IInd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. He also relies on the binding precedents of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa & Others v. State of Bihar & others[A.I.R. 2001 S.C.3218] and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar[2008 A.C.J. 1488]. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased, which was claimed and worked out as a cook and tea maker in a hotel, can safely be assumed to be Rs.3000/- per mensem. 6. He was aged 23 years. Without dispute, he belonged to the group of persons of age 20-25 years. Going by the dictum in MCA 2213/2008 4 Sarla Verma v. D.T.C.[2009(6)S.C.C. 121], 18 is the multiplier to be adopted for persons of that group. We are satisfied that the appellant and the other claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation. 7. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant/wife and the parents of the deceased together are entitled to a further amount of Rs. 92,000/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Loss of dependency :Rs.92,000/- (3000x12x2/3x18=4,32,000 minus 340000) 8. Needless to say, proportionate cost awarded by the Tribunal must be ascertained on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K.[2011(3) K.H.C.728]. 9. In the result, a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The appellant along with the parents of the deceased (claimants in O.P.MV.1016/2004) are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.92,000/- (Rupees ninety two thousand only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. MCA 2213/2008 5 c)We make it clear that the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal. d) We further direct that proportionate cost before the Tribunal be paid as indicated in Jeena (supra). e)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld including the direction that 60% of the total amount of compensation shall be payable to the appellant; 30% to the mother of the deceased and 10% to the father of the deceased. Even without any application by the parents of the deceased, the Tribunal shall ensure that their share in the enhanced amount reaches them. Jsr/ks. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE