IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 1186 of 2005 ----------------------- OPMV.3635/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT NO.2. -------------------------------------- V.B.SUBITHA, W/O.VENUGOPALAN, MAMPULLY HOUSE, THAIKKAD, VIA. GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENS. -------------------------- 1. B.KRISHNAN, S/O.BIKYA, BEERAN SHETTY PALAYAM, NARASIMHALPET MANDAL, WARANGAL, ANDHRA PRADESH, DRIVER OF AP-35-T5333 LORRY. 2. PEDAGONI RAMULU, S/O.MALLAIAH, GATTIKKAL, RAYAPARTHY MANDAL, WARRANGAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, OWER OF AP-35/T-5333. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. WARANGAL, ANDHRA PRADESH. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1186 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 20, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the 2nd claimant in OP(MV) 3635/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The 1st claimant is her husband. Deceased Vinod was their only son aged 19 who died in a motor accident. He was working as a Clerk in Kerala Roadways Ltd. in Secunderabad and was also studying for Computer Courses. On February 25, 2000 at about 10.45 p.m. he was pillion riding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 10K/9356 which was ridden by one deceased Mubaraq from Erragadda to Punchagudda in Seconderabad. While so, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-36-T- 5333 came from behind and dashed against the motorcycle. The rider as well as the pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained serious injuries and they died on the spot. The claimants have filed the OP before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.6,31,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of their son in the accident, alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent, driver of the offending lorry. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the M.A.C.A. 1186 of 2005 2 offending vehicle, did not appear before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, Insurance Company, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 3. This OP was jointly tried along with OP(MV) 1941/2000 filed by the legal heirs of deceased Mubaraq and a common award was passed Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A19 and X1 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the contesting 3rd respondent, RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,13,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.6000/-. The 2nd claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. 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 claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is M.A.C.A. 1186 of 2005 3 as under: loss of dependency Rs.3,04,000/- funeral expenses 2,000/- pain and suffering 5,000/- loss of estate 2,500/- 7. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- and assessed a compensation of Rs.4,56,000/- as provided under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act under Sec.163 of the Act. As the deceased was aged 19 and PW.2, the 2nd claimant, was aged 50 at the time of the accident, and after deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,04,000/- for loss of dependency. But the claim was under Sec.166 of the Act. Therefore the Tribunal should have assessed and awarded compensation as provided thereunder. Ext.X1, the file produced by the Kerala Roadways Ltd., Calicut, regarding the employment of the deceased and the evidence of RW1, his employer, shows that he was working as a Clerk in Kerala Roadways Ltd., Seconderabad and was earning Rs.3500/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2500/- which comes to Rs.30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- can be taken as his M.A.C.A. 1186 of 2005 4 annual contribution to his family. It is not disputed that the deceased was the only son of the claimants. Therefore we feel that the multiplier of 16 would be reasonable in this case. Thus calculated, for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- (20,000 x 16). As regards the other compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 8. Thus the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.16,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum, which appears to be very low. Therefore the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and on the enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal, from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent, the insurer, shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimant. 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/-