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 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 595 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.502/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECOTR, NESAMONY TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., NAGERCOIL, NOW KNOWN AS TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI DIVISION-III) LTD. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. R. JOHNSON, S/O. RAMU NADAR, PLANKALA PUTHEN VEEDU, THUDALI, MYLACHAL, KEEZHASOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VIJITHA (MINOR), D/O. DECEASED LALITHA BHAI, DO. 3. BIJU (MINOR), S/O. DECEASED LALITHA BAI, DO. 4. VIJITH (MINOR), S/O. DECEASED LALITHA BAI, DO. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2175/2003 IN MACA NO.595/2003 DISMISSED 21/10/2008 SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/- K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.595 OF 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated 21st October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Wife of the first respondent and mother of respondents 2 to 4 died in a motor accident. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the appellant and appellant was directed to deposit a compensation of Rs.3,04,800/= with interest. The contention of the appellant is that quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. The deceased lady was a vegetable merchant. According to the claimants, her monthly income was Rs.3,500/=. The Tribunal has taken only Rs.1,800/= as the monthly income. Contention of the appellant is that the income of the deceased was not proved and, therefore, Rs.1,800/= ought not have been fixed as the monthly income. Oral evidence was adduced to show that the deceased was doing vegetable business. No counter evidence was adduced. Apart from the above, she was the mother of three minor children. Services rendered to the family as a house wife, mother of three minor children and a wife cannot be under-estimated and those services are not valueless. Therefore, Rs.1,800/= fixed as the monthly income cannot be termed as excessive. One third was deducted and MACA.595/2003 2 Rs.1,200/= was taken as the monthly loss of family contribution and calculated compensation. Since the deceased was aged 35, 17 was taken as the multiplier taking guidance from the second schedule. We are of the opinion that the multiplicand taken was only a paltry amount. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that second schedule should be taken as a guideline for fixing multiplier. We are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is required in the same. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks