IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 MACA.No. 378 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.2469/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOTTAYAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMAMA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. P.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREYUS, KANAKKARI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. NIRMALA C.NAIR, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, DO. DO. 3. SMITHA MOL R., D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.378 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 2nd April, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Unfortunate parents along with their daughter filed an application for compensation for the death of their son in a motor accident. They claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/=. Tribunal awarded Rs.3,69,000/=. Contention taken by the insurance company in this appeal is that quantum of compensation awarded is on the high side as deceased was an unmarried person. Tribunal has taken a multiplier of 17 even though father and mother were aged more than 60 years. According to the claimants, mother was aged 61 and father was aged over 65 at the time of accident. It is true that the Apex Court repeatedly held that even in the claim filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation can be calculated taking guidance from the second schedule framed for the purpose of section 163-A. At the same time, in the case of application filed for the death of unmarried person, the age of the deceased and claimants whichever is lower should be taken. In this case, both father and mother were over 60 and sister was married. In the above circumstances, only five can be taken as the multiplier. MACA.378/2008 2 Tribunal has deducted 2/3rd of the monthly income for calculating loss of dependency. According to the claimants, monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/= and they produced documentary evidence to prove the same. Tribunal has taken Rs.5,000/= as the monthly income (Rs.60,000/= per year), but, only Rs.20,000/= was taken as the annual loss of dependency taking one third of the income. That was also wrong. Only 1/3rd can be deducted for personal expenses. Since 2/3rd income has to be taken for finding loss of family contribution, Rs.40,000/= is fixed as yearly loss of family contribution and applying a multiplier of 5 compensation payable for loss of family contribution will be Rs.2,00,000/=. Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/= for transportation expenses, Rs.1,000/= for damages to clothing, Rs.6,000/= for funeral expenses , Rs.10,000/= for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/= for loss of love and affection etc. Thus, Rs.29,000/= was awarded under other grounds. It is contended that no compensation was awarded for medical expenses. Since he sustained head injury, he was taken to Matha hospital, Thellakom and from there to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and he died after administration of life saving medicines. In these circumstances, we are of the view that another Rs.6,000/= ought to have been awarded for medical expenses. Thus, total compensation payable will be Rs.2,35,000/=, MACA.378/2008 3 instead of Rs.3,69,000/= awarded by the Tribunal. The above Rs.2,35,000/= should be deposited by the appellant insurance company with proportionate interest and cost as awarded by the Tribunal and the amount on deposit shall be disbursed as directed in the award. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks