IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 900 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.2320/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------ 1. RESHMI SUDHIR, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.LATE SUDHIR. 2. C.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR. 3. KUMARI K.NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.C.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR. 4. SANGEETHA, AGED 22 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER C.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR. (ALL ARE RESIDING AT B-7, FLAT NO.16, VELLALA STREET, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI- 24, AND NOW RESIDING AT `AISWARYA', ARATTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR-680 562. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT NO.4 --------------- 1. N.M.ABDUL HAMEED, NJAVAKKATU HOUSE, THYNOTHIL ROAD, ALUVA. 2. P.M.HASSAINAR, PATTARUMADOM VEEDU, VENGOLA VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, MTPC OFFICE, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-16. MACA.No.900/05 2 4. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDOMKULATHY BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. 5. SUNIL NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.C.KRISHANKUTTY NAIR, B-7 METRO, FLAT NO.16, VELLALA STREET, KODAMBAKKAM, MADRASS-600 024, NOW RESIDING AT `AISWARYA', ARATTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR-680 562. ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA FOR R4 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.900 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.2320/1996 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 27,2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,02,500/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of deceased Sudhir in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these : Deceased Sudhir was aged 29 at the time of the accident. He was employed as Deputy Manager( Finance) in M/s.Tata Tea Limited at Munnar. On March 20, 1996 at about 12.45 noon, deceased was driving the car bearing Reg.No.TCS-6432 along Aluva-Munnar public road. When he reached at Odakkali, the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-8/A- 5607 came from the opposite side and dashed against the car of the deceased. Deceased Sudhir sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the MACA.No.900/05 2 hospital on the fifth day. Claimants are his wife, parents, sister and brother. According to the claimants, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending bus are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the dependants and legal heirs of the deceased. 3. First respondent, the owner of the offending bus, filed a written statement admitting the accident, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Second respondent, the driver of the offending bus was deleted from the party array. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting the policy. Fourth respondent is the insurer of the car in which the deceased was travelling. Fourth respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. 4. This O.P. was jointly tried along with other O.Ps. filed by other injured persons in the accident and a common award was passed. Pws 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A85 were marked on the side MACA.No.900/05 3 of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,02,500/-. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 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 second 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.4,02,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under : Loss of dependency - Rs. 3,60,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium - Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/- MACA.No.900/05 4 Loss of estate - Rs. 2,500/- Short expectation of life - Rs. 5,000/- 8. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the loss of dependency, loss of consortium and for pain and suffering. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family as Rs. 2,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- for loss of dependency. Ext.A15, the salary certificate of the deceased shows that he was employed as Deputy Manager (Finance), Tata Tea Ltd. at Munnar and was drawing a salary of Rs. 5920/- per month and an annual perquisites for the value of Rs. 2,81,224/- . Taking into consideration the above fact, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 6,000/-. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month can be taken as his monthly contribution to his family which works out to Rs.48,000/- per annum. The proper multiplier that can be adopted in this case is 17. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,16,000/- ( 48,000 x 17). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled MACA.No.900/05 5 to an additional compensation of Rs.4,56,000/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased as well as the first claimant widow, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 11. For loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be quite inadequate. Having regard to the fact that deceased was the eldest son of claimants 2 and 3 and the sister of deceased was aged 14 at the time of the accident, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/-. 12. For the pain and suffering endured, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the fact that deceased died only after five days of the accident, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. MACA.No.900/05 6 13. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. 14 In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 4,76,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to proportionate cost. The third 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 sv. MACA.No.900/05 7