IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1002 of 2005(B) ----------------------- OPMV.289/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. MURUKESWARY, W/O.PARAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PANDYARAJAN, COMPOUND HEERA NAGAR, T.P.K.ROAD, MADURAI-1. 2. MURUKAN, S/O.PALANICHAND, AGED 32 YEARS, 13TH WARD, MUNICIPAL COLONY, MUNICIPAL PETTAI STREET, MELE CHOKKANATHAPURAM VILLAGE, BODINAYIKKANNOOR, THANI (DT). 3. ALAKAMMAL, W/O.GANESHAN, 28 YEARS, DO. DO. 4. PANCHAVARNAM, W/O.GANESHAN, 26 YEARS, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.A.SALIM, S/O.ABDUL KADER, MULAKKAPARAMBIL (H), NEAR MERCHANT WELFARE OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.M.S.PATTALI FOR R3 SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN FOR R3 SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R2 SRI.A.V.THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R2 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.A.L.GEORGE FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON 06/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 1002 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th Day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. The appellants are the claimants. They are the children of a lady aged 60 years who died as a result of injuries suffered in a Motor vehicle accident. They laid a claim for Rs. 5 lakhs which was limited to Rs.3 lakhs and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.82,000/- This appeal is directed against the quantum. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. There is no appearance for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would essentially content that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- and then deducting 1/3. He would submit that the income should have been taken as Rs.3,750/- per month. He would further submit the multiplier of 9 should have been taken going by the decision of the Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298). He further submitted that the appellants have been granted only Rs.15,000/- M.A.C.A. NO: 1002 OF 2005 : 2 : towards love and affection. 4. We feel that some enhancement is warranted. The case of the appellants in the petition was that the deceased was earning Rs.2,350/- as monthly income from weaving of bamboos. But we note that absolutely no evidence was adduced by the appellants. It is true that the respondents were exparte. But that does no mean that whatever is stated in the petition is to be straightaway accepted. Having regard to the date of accident is 25.1.2002, we feel that, however the income of deceased can be fixed at Rs.1,250/- per month. 5. Next comes the question is what is the multiplier to be adopted. The deceased was aged 60 at the time of her death. In para 21 of the Apex Court judgment referred above, it reads as “We therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 ( for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years) reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” M.A.C.A. NO: 1002 OF 2005 : 3 : 6. Therefore, going by the aforesaid dicta, the multiplier should be fixed at 9. Accordingly we adopt 9 instead of 8 as multiplier. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that, 1/3 could have been deducted. We note the appellants in fact are major children of the deceased. On the basis of calculation, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.26,000/- more towards dependency. We feel that appellants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- more towards love and affection. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants are allowed to realise a sum of Rs.31,000/- with an interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization from the third respondent in the same share as it was allowed by the Tribunal. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/