IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 543 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.2853/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. BY ADVS. SRI.KKM.SHERIF, SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BINDU MURALIDHARAN, W/O. LATE MURALI @ MURALIDHARAN, ADATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR. 2. JERALD PAUL, S/O. PAUL, MOYALAN HOUSE, KALLOOR P.O., THRISSUR. 3. LONAPPAN @ JOY, S/O. RAPPAYI, PARAYIL HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLI P.O., THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A.No. 543 of 2007 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act third respondent (Insurance Company) in O.P.(MV) No.2853 of 2000 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 5, 2006 awarding a compensation of Rs.9,64,900/- to the second claimant for the loss caused to her on account of the death of Muraleedharan in a motor accident. 2. The O.P. was initially filed by Muraleedharan, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. Subsequently, he died, as a result of the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, his wife was impleaded as suppl. second petitioner as his legal heir . 3. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:- Muraleedharan was aged 35 at the time of the MACA 543/07 2 accident and used to earn Rs.10,000/- p.m. from conducting a textile business. On March 17, 2000 at about 8.15 p.m. while the deceased was standing with his bicycle on the side of Thrissur - Kunnamkulam public road, he was knocked down by a bus bearing registration No. KL-8H 3744. He sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained, while undergoing treatment at Amala Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Thrissur after two years. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the second respondent in the O.P. Respondents 1 to 3 in the O.P. who are the owner, driver and insurer of the offending bus respectively are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation to the second petitioner. She has claimed a compensation of Rs.12 lakhs. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P., owner and driver of the offending bus respectively, remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The third respondent insurer of the offending bus (appellant) filed a written MACA 543/07 3 statement, admitting the policy . 5. PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by contesting third respondent, the appellant in this appeal. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,64,900/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and with proportionate costs. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent/second claimant. 7. 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 in the O.P. is not challenged in this appeal. The counsel for the appellant argued that the second claimant has not proved that deceased Muraleedharan died as a result of the injuries MACA 543/07 4 sustained in the accident and that the compensation awarded is excessive. Therefore, the questions which arise for consideration in this appeal are whether the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident and if so, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive ?. 8. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident and that therefore, he can claim compensation only for the injury sustained by him. There is no substance in the above contention.The accident happened onMarch 17, 2000. The first claimant died on January 17, 2002. Ext.A8 certificate issued from the Amala Cancer Hospital and Research Centre and Exts.X1 and X2 case sheet of the deceased clearly show that deceased Muraleedharan developed multiple complication due to head injury like hydrocephalus and died on January 17, 2002. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that he died as a result of the injuries sustained by MACA 543/07 5 him in the motor accident has to be confirmed. 9. The next question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded is excessive. 10. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,64,900/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Loss of earnings : Rs.35,000/- Transportation expenses : Rs.5000/- Extra nourishment : Rs.5,000/- Damage to clothing : Rs.500/- Medical expenses : Rs.1,19,400/- Personal assistance : Rs.15,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs.40,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs.5,000/- Loss of consortium : Rs.25,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs.25,000/- Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/- Loss of dependency : Rs.6,80,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.9,64,900/- ======== 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the compensation awarded for the disability caused by the Tribunal is excessive. We find no substance in the above contention. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- and adopted a MACA 543/07 6 multiplier of 17. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the annual contribution to his family was taken as Rs.40,000/- and Rs.6,80,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. The case of the first respondent/claimant is that deceased Muraleedharan was getting Rs.10,000/- from his textile business, which is proved by Exts.A9 to A11. Ext.A12 would show that deceased was having fixed deposit in Adat Farmer's Service Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal took the multiplier of 17, which is not disputed. Therefore, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of dependency is quite reasonable and adequate. 12. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads,we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. Consequently, the appeal is found devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. MACA 543/07 7 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed The parties shall bear their own costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.