IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 885 of 2011() ----------------------------- OPMV.109/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ----------------------------------- 1. SAMUEL, KATTATTOR VADAKKEKARA,PANDITHITTA, AMBALATHIN NIRAPPU P.O., KOLLAM. 2. ANIL SAMUEL,KATTATTOR VADAKKEKARA, PANDITHITTA, AMBALATHIN NIRAPPU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.NAVA VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. KATHIRESAN, 4/152C, KATTUR, TRICHY-620 001. 2. JAYAKRISHNAN, 19/461, SHORNUR ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. A.SOMASEKHARAN, APPU TRANSPORT, CHOUVA, KANNUR-670 006. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KAYAMKULAM-690 502. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs R. BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.1413 of 2011 & M.A.C.A.No.885 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 Order/Judgment Basant, J. C.M.Appl.No.1413 of 2011 This petition is to condone the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straightaway. Since we are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned without waiting for issue and return of notice to the respondents. Petition allowed. Delay is condoned. M.A.C.A.No.885 of 2011 2. Claimants are the appellants. They are father and brother of the deceased person. Against a total claim for Rs.9,55,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation as per the details given below: 1. Transportation expenses - Rs.4,000/- 2. Damage to clothing - Rs.500/- 3. pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/- C.M.Appl.1413/11 & MACA 885/11 2 4. Loss of dependency - Rs.2,16,000/- 5. Funeral expenses - Rs.4,500/- 6. Loss of estate - Rs.5,000/- ----------------- Total - Rs.2,40,000 ========== 3. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on the sole ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is too low. Called upon to explain the challenge, the learned counsel for the appellants specifically assails the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- as compensation under this head(Rs.4,000 x 50/100 x 12 x 9). 4. Learned counsel for the appellants first of all contends that the amount of Rs.4000/- reckoned at monthly income is not justified. Reliance is placed on Exts.A8 to A10 which suggest that the deceased was employed in a private company, was getting a total gross income of Rs.3292/-, 5392/-, 5192/- and 4892/- respectively for the months of July, August, September and October. They indicate that the deceased was getting monthly C.M.Appl.1413/11 & MACA 885/11 3 basic wages of Rs.1975/- and HRA Rs.1317, making a total of Rs.3292/-. In addition, he was being paid incentive at varying rates every month. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, cannot be said to have committed any error warranting appellate interference in having reckoned the monthly income at Rs.4000/-. 5. The deceased was aged 29 years. He was not married. The father, the first claimant was aged 56 years. The multiplier was taken correctly at 9% since the father was entitled only for a lesser multiplier than the multiplier if reckoned taking into account the age of the deceased. 6. The Tribunal had fixed Rs.2000/- as the monthly contribution to the father for the entire remaining period of 9 years. The deceased in all probability would have got married and we are unable to agree that the computation made by the Tribunal is in any way incorrect as to warrant interference at the appellate stage. We are satisfied that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency does not warrant interference. 7. We further note that reasonable amounts have been C.M.Appl.1413/11 & MACA 885/11 4 awarded under all the other heads and at any rate does not warrant appellate interference. This appeal, in these circumstances, is dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd