IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 1067 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.605/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- VILASINI, AGED 44 YEAS, W/O. APPU PEROTHAYIL, THEYYANGAD, PONANI. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:- --------------- 1. P.K.PAREED, S/O. KOCHUNNI, PALLIPARMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, P.O.KAKKAND, KOCHI. 2. N.N.RAJU, S/O. MATHAI, NADUVINGAL HOUSE, KOROTHKUHI, ALUVA. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE II, JEWEL ARCADE, LAYAM ROAD, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= M.A.C.A. No. 1067 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J: In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimant in O.P.(MV) No.605 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 7, 2008 awarding a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss caused to the claimant, on account of the death of her son Sunil Kumar in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these:- Deceased Sunil Kumar was aged 24 at the time of the accident. He was a Mason and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, according to the claimant. The claimant is the mother and sole legal heir of the deceased. She was aged 41 at the time of the accident. On March 13, 2005 at about 8 p.m., deceased Sunil Kumar was cycling along Ponnani- Chamravattom public road, when he reached at MACA 1067/2009 2 Pakkathuparamb, a lorry bearing registration No. KL-7G 3096 came at high speed and knocked him down. Sunil Kumar sustained very serious injuries and he succumbed to the inujuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the Amala Hospital, Thrissur. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, the second respondent. The first respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 3. The first respondent owner of the offending lorry filed written statement before the Tribunal, admitting the accident, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The second respondent, the driver of the offending lorry, remained absent. The third respondent filed written statement, admitting the policy. 4. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 series were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence MACA 1067/2009 3 was adduced by the contesting respondents 1 and 3. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent driver of the offending lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and costs. The claimant has come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the third respondent. 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, driver of the offending lorry, is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation? 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transport to hospital : Rs.1,800/- MACA 1067/2009 4 Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/- Loss of dependency : Rs.1,80,000/- Medical bills : Rs.6,200/- Funeral expenses : Rs.2,000/- ------------------ Rs.2,00,000/- ======== 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly sought enhancement of compensation awarded for the loss of dependency. He has also pointed out that no amount was awarded towards loss of love and affection. In the case of the death of an individual the principles laid down in Sarala Varma V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ((2009)6 SCC 121) have to be followed in assessing the loss of dependency and awarding compensation. 9. The claimant as PW1 testified that deceased was working as a Mason and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal took his monthly income as Rs.3,000/-, which appears to be reasonable. Taking into consideration the fact that he was an unmarried person, his contribution to the family was taken as Rs.1,000/- by the Tribunal, which, in our view, is not correct. The deceased was the only son of the claimant. He would have looked after the claimant in her MACA 1067/2009 5 old age. The claimant was aged 41 at the time of the accident and deceased was aged only 24. Taking into consideration the above fact, we are of the view that only 1/3rd of the income of the claimant need be deducted for his personal expenses. Thus calculated his monthly contribution to his family would be at Rs.2,000/- per month (Rs.24,000/- per year). 10. The deceased was aged 24 at the time of the accident and claimant was his mother aged 41. As the deceased was the only son of the claimant, the Tribunal took multiplier as 15 which appears to be reasonable. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency the claimant is entitled to compensation of RS.3,60,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 15). Thus on this count the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. 11. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for the loss of love and affection. Deceased being the only son of the claimant, we feel that compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we feel that the MACA 1067/2009 6 same is reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 12. Thus, the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-. She is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle, shall deposit the amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment before the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified to that effect. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn