IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 9 of 2009(A) --------------------- OPMV.1135/2004 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT -------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KANJIRAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI -18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 TO 5 --------------- 1. SONIA JOSEPH @ SONIA ANTONY, W/O. LATE TONE ZACHARIAS, AKKARAKKALAM HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. TARUN ZACHARIAS, AKKARAKALAM, S/O. LATE TONY ZACHARIAS, AKKARAKKALAM HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM, MINOR REP. BY MOTHER THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS NEXT FRIEND 3. MRS. ALICE ZACHARIAS, W/O. LATE JOSEPH ZACHARIAS, AKKARAKKALAM HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. JACOB ZACHARIA AKKARAKKALAM HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. S.KAMALAM, W/O. K.P. SWAMINATHAN, DOOR NO. 3/54, SC JEEVA STREET NO.3, SALEM -2, TAMIL NADU. 6. PARAMESWARAN M, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY, THEKKUMPATTU VILLAGE, OMALLOOR POLICE STATION, VELLALPATTA, SALEM LIST, TAMIL NADU. 7. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO-LTD., BRANCH OFFICE - III 137 -B, CHERRY ROAD, SALEM 636 001. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATORS T.C.SURESH MENON JIBU P.THOMAS P.S.APPU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, ALONG WITH CAVEAT O.P.NO. 956 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A NO.413 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A Nos.9 and 413 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Both the claimants and insurance company have preferred these appeals against an award directing payment of compensation to the claimants for the loss suffered by them as a result of a motor accident which occurred on 29.12.2003. 2. Deceased was aged 32 years on the date of the accident. The claimants are his wife and minor child aged about 2 years on the date of the accident and the mother of the deceased. The deceased was employed as an Administrative Officer of the Amal Jyothi College of Engineering. He was allegedly earning an income of Rs.12,227/- on the date of the accident. He could have continued in such employment till he attains the age of 65 years as per the relevant rules. He suffered the injuries on 29.12.2003. He continued treatment till 08.03.04 on which day he succumbed to his injuries. He was an M.B.A graduate by qualification. 3. The accident occurred when a vehicle in which the deceased was travelling went and hit on a lorry which was parked by the side of the road. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to M.A.C.A Nos.9 and 413 of 2009 2 A30 were marked on the side of the claimants. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of a total amount of Rs.17,40,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below: i) Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/- ii) Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000/- iii) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000/- iv) Loss of estate : Rs. 5,000/- v) Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- vi) Transportation expenses : Rs. 8,000/- vii) Medical expenses (Against bills produced) : Rs. 2,64,000/- viii) Loss of dependency (10,500X12X2/3X17) : Rs.14,28,000/- Total : Rs.17,40,000/- The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 4. The claimants contend that the amounts awarded under the different heads are too low and a higher amount ought to have been awarded as compensation. They had claimed a total amount of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation. It is submitted that the claim was limited to that amount. M.A.C.A Nos.9 and 413 of 2009 3 5. The insurance company on the other hand contends that the Tribunal had gone wrong in assuming that the driver of the jeep was negligent and was entirely responsible for the accident. The learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and grossly high. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. On the question of negligence, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. The police after due investigation had come to the conclusion that the the accident had occurred solely on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep insured by the appellant/insurer. The Tribunal noted that the accident speaks for itself. The lorry was parked by the side of the road. The insured vehicle was being driver by its driver along the road and the said vehicle had gone and hit against the parked lorry. The fact that the lorry was on the wrong side or that it had no lights are not according to us sufficient reasons in the circumstances of the case to allege, contend or accept that the driver of the insured vehicle was not wholly responsible for the accident. The final report submitted by the police which is produced as Ext.A5 the scene mahazar which is produced as Ext.A2, report of the M.A.C.A Nos.9 and 413 of 2009 4 Motor Vehicle Inspector produced as Ext.A4 as also the F.I.R marked as Ext.A1 really indicate that it was a case where the cause of the accident can safely be attributed to driver of the jeep insured by the appellant/insurer. We find no merit in the challenge raised against the finding regarding negligence. 7. About the quantum, the rival contestants assert that the amounts are excessive (insurer) and that they are grossly inadequate (claimants). The income certificate produced shows that the basic pay was Rs.11,025/- per mensem and that the total emoluments on the last month was Rs.12,227/-. The Tribunal accepted only Rs.10,500/- as the multiplicand. From that 1/3rd was reduced for the personal expenses of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the multiplicand has been taken in gross disregard of the salary certificate Ext.A15. The counsel further submits that the future improvement in the employment prospects of the young deceased had not been taken into account at all. The learned counsel for the insurance company on the contrary contends that the multiplicand adopted is too high. Ext.A15 could not have been lightly accepted and swallowed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the insurance company further contends that M.A.C.A Nos.9 and 413 of 2009 5 adoption of 17 as the multiplier when the multiplicand is so high- above Rs.10,000/- per mensem is again not justified. 8. We are unable to agree that the contentions of either side can be accepted. In the absence of better and satisfactory reasons, it will be absolutely safe to go by the multiplier given in the second schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act. For persons of the age group 30-35 years, 17 has been fixed as the multiplier. The deceased is shown to be aged about 32 years. He was close to the half way mark of the age group 30-35 years. In these circumstances adoption of 17 as the multiplier does not appear to us to warrant any appellate interference. 9. The counsel for the claimants contends that the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of estate, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are all inadequate. He further contends that no amount whatsoever has been awarded under the head of bystander's expenses or loss of earning for the period of 70 days during which period the deceased was undergoing treatment in the hospital. The learned counsel for the insurance company on the contrary contends that the multiplier and the multiplicand adopted are too high. He further contends that award of an M.A.C.A Nos.9 and 413 of 2009 6 amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of `costs' is not justified at all. 10. In the light of the relative high amount awarded under the head `loss of dependency (Rs.14,28,000/-) and considering the fact that the entire medical expenses covered by the bills has also been awarded, we are satisfied that the total compensation awarded of Rs.17,40,000/- is absolutely fair, just, reasonable and the same does not at any rate warrant appellate interference at the instances of the claimants. The multiplier and the multiplicand taken by the Tribunal though attempted to be assailed by the insurance company, it also appear to us to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just and does not need any interference at all. 11. These appeals are, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-