IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 1860 of 2005 ----------------------- OPMV.2528/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------- 1. SOMAVALLY, W/O.LATE RAVINDRAN 2. SRI.SAJITHA SREEVALSAN, D/O. LATE RAVINDRAN 3. SRI.SAJESH, S/O.LATE RAVINDRAN. 4. SRI.RAJESH, S/O. LATE RAVINDRAN. ALL ARE RESIDING AT KULATHINGAL HOUSE, KALLIDUKKU, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SMT.M.R.VALSA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. V.M.IBRAHIM, S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT VATHISSERY HOUSE, THOTTUMMUGHAM P.O.,KUTTAMASSERY,ERNAKUALM. 2. SRI.BAIJU,S/O.POULOSE,RESIDING AT KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, SHANMUGHAPURAM,MALAYUTHUR,NILESWARAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RRANCH OFFICE, JASMINE BUILDINGS, PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM. 4. SRI.K.S.MOIDEEN,RESIDING AT KANELI HOUSE, MEKKALADY P.O.,KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. SMT. VALSAMMA, D/O. LATE MADHAVAN 6. SRI.SASIDHARAN, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN. 7. SMT. REMANI @ GOURI, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN. MACA.No. 1860 of 2005 2 8. SMT.USHA, D/O.LATE MADHAVA,. 9. SMT.OMANA, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN. RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT KULATHINGAL HOUSE, KALLIDUKKU, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1860 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 9, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, petitioners 1 to 4 in OP(MV) 2528/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, March 31, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,59,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of Ravindran in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The deceased Ravindran was a rubber tapper aged 45 at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.4000/- per month, according to the claimants. Claimants 1 to 6 are his wife, major children and parents. As during the pendency of the O.P. the parents died, the brothers and sisters of the deceased were impleaded as additional claimants 7 to 11. On June 22, 2000 at about 5.45 a.m. the deceased was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL8 J 614 along NH 47. When he reached near Chuvannamannu a lorry bearing registration No.KRH 3355 driven by the 2nd respondent came at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained M.A.C.A. 1860 of 2005 2 while undergoing treatment in the hospital on the same day. According to the claimants the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent as the owner, the 2nd respondent as the driver and the 3rd respondent as the insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending lorry, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending lorry, filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contended that there was also negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 4. Pw.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,59,000 /- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.5000/-. Claimants 1 to 4, the wife and children of the deceased, have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A. 1860 of 2005 3 5. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,59,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- loss of dependency - Rs.2,08,000/- medical and transportation expenses - 1,000/- funeral expenses - 5,000/- pain and sufferings - 10,000/- loss of estate - 10,000/- loss of consortium - 10,000/- loss of love and affection - 15,000/- 8. The Counsel for the appellants/claimants sought enhancement of the compensation awarded for the loss of dependency and for loss of love and affection. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- which works out to Rs.24000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance Rs.16000/- is taken as his annual contribution M.A.C.A. 1860 of 2005 4 to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 13 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- for the loss of dependency. PW.1/1st claimant testified before the Tribunal that the deceased was a rubber tapper earning Rs.4000/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed as Rs.2500/- which works out to Rs.30,000/- per annum. In the light of the principle laid down in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 (6) SCC 121), only 1/4th need be deducted for his personal expenses. That being so, the annual contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.22,500/- (30,000 - 7500). The multiplier adopted as 13 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the loss of dependency, the appellants/claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,92,500/- (22,500 x 13). Thus on this count, claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.84,500/-. 9. For loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the age of claimants 1 to 4, we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be adequate on this count. 10. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.89,500/-. The Tribunal awarded interest only at 6% per annum M.A.C.A. 1860 of 2005 5 which appears to be very low. The appellants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum for the compensation already awarded and for the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-