IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 1073 of 2008 ----------------------- ( OP(MV).2090/2001 OF IST ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE ) APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOZHIKODE NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, 'SHARANYA', HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 2 TO 6: ----------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA.K., W/O.LATE NANU PANIKKER, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, NELLIKKODE, CALICUT 2. INDHIRA, D/O.NANU PANIKKER, DO. DO. 3. SUGUNAN, S/O.NANU PANIKKER DO. DO. 4. UDAYAN.K., S/O.NANU PANIKKER, DO.DO. 5. MEENAKUMARI, D/O.NANU PANICKER, DO.DO. R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ........................................................................ M.A.C.A.No. 1073 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Raman, J: Compensation was claimed in the case of death of a girl aged two years by the legal representatives, viz., grand father, grand mother, father's sisters and father's brothers by filing Claim Petition, O.P.(MV)No. 2090 of 2001 before the I Addl. M.A.C.T., Kozhikode. The accident occurred on 11.03.2001. The father and mother of the child also died in the same accident, for which compensation was separately claimed and awarded. The only point that arise for consideration was with regard to the multiplier to be adopted to quantify dependency compensation. 2. The grand father was aged 73, grand mother was aged 63, one of the father's sister was aged 41, another father's sister was aged 32. Among the claimants included two of the brothers of the father, aged 38 and 34 respectively. The Tribunal took '15' as the multiplier. The point raised in this appeal is that the grand father (who died subsequently) and grand mother may be ultimately dependent on the child at a farther point of time; none others considering their relationship could claim any M.A.C.A.No. 1073 OF 2008 2 dependency compensation, as such their age cannot be a relevant factor to be reckoned while fixing the appropriate multiplier. 2. In this case, though the claimants pleaded that they are the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased child, it was not admitted in the written statement. No evidence was adduced by the claimants as to who are likely to be dependent on the child. That will depend on variety of factors. 3. In the matter of fixation of compensation under different heads, some of compensation are payable directly to the deceased, say for example, compensation towards 'pain and suffering'; whereas in the case of compensation towards 'loss of love and affection', loss of estate ' etc., every claimants may be entitled to have the share in the compensation to be fixed. In the case of compensation towards 'consortium' only the husband or wife, as the case may be, is awarded compensation. In the case of 'dependency compensation' under section 166 of the M.V. Act, the actual dependency or possibility of being dependent has to be proved. All the claimants may be or may not be entitled for that part of compensation payable as 'dependency M.A.C.A.No. 1073 OF 2008 3 compensation', since that will depend upon as to whether all of them or any one of them is actually or is likely to be dependent on the deceased. Therefore even remote relationship of the parties with the deceased may be a factor and will have to be taken into account while determining, as to whether they are likely to be dependent on the child or not. For example, in the case of father's sister who might not even married or after her marriage, her husband died issueless, possibly she may become dependent on the father and in turn the child itself on a future date. These are all matters to be taken into account before one could say whether all of them or any one could claim dependency compensation or as to who are the persons entitled to claim compensation. Once it is found, the multiplier has to be adopted taking note of the age of those who are entitled for dependency compensation and also taking into account the age of the deceased whichever is higher . 4. In the absence of any finding as to who are the dependents of the deceased, the adoption of '15' as the multiplier presuming that the claimants, who are arrayed in the party M.A.C.A.No. 1073 OF 2008 4 array, are entitled for dependency compensation, is not correct. In the said circumstances, we set aside the award and remit the case to the Tribunal for fresh finding on this issue. The compensation under the other heads are not in dispute and therefore the same is confirmed . The appeal is thus allowed, by way of remand for rendering a finding as to who are the dependents or likely to be dependent on the deceased and what is the correct multiplier to be adopted and calculate the dependency compensation. The parties shall appear before the court below on 16.03.2010. The Tribunal shall offer an opportunity to adduce evidence to both the sides and pass final award, as expeditiously as possible, within three months from the date of first appearance. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk