IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1536 of 2004() ----------------------- O.P.(M.V.)NO.32/1998 OF M.A.C.T, THALASSERY APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. VALIYAPURAYIL GOVINDAN, S/O. CHANTHU, AGED 56 YEARS, VALIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, P.O. MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. VALIYAPURAYIL GOURI, W/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 51 YEARS, VALIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, P.O. MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.6: ------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THALASSERY. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1536 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the parents of the deceased, a person aged about 27 years, who was employed abroad. The parents are shown to be aged 50 years and 45 years respectively. The deceased was employed as a goldsmith in Saudi Arabia. According to the claimants, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/-. After sustaining the injuries on 20/4/1997, the deceased underwent treatment and succumbed to the injuries long later on 24/6/1997. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were produced. Exts.A1 to A11 and A16 were marked before the Tribunal to support the claim of the claimants. The 1st claimant was examined as PW1. 2. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs.3.17 lakhs as compensation as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 2 1. Medical expenses Rs.77,000/- (Against bills produced) 2. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- 4. Loss of dependency Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.5,000 x ¼ x 12 x 15) Total Rs.3,17,000/- 3. Accordingly the impugned award was passed directing payment of the said amount of Rs.3.17 lakhs along with interest @ 9% per annum. 4. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What are the reasons? Called upon to explain the precise nature of challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants contends first of all that no compensation has been awarded for extra nourishment, bystanders expenditure etc. though the deceased had continued as an in-patient for a long time before he breathed his last. Only Rs.77,000/- against the actual medical bills alone has been granted under the head of medical expenses. Miscellaneous expenses in the nature of transport to hospital, extra nourishment, bystanders expenditure M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 3 etc. have not been considered at all by the Tribunal, it is contended. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that a further amount of Rs.7,500/- can be awarded under the head of miscellaneous expenses in addition to the medical expenses already awarded by the tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants secondly contends that the tribunal has not realistically made an assessment of the compensation payable under the head of pain and suffering. The period of hospitalisation, nature of injuries, the nature of procedures undergone etc. have not been taken into reckoning and it is contended that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering is grossly insufficient. Considering the totality of circumstances, we are persuaded to accept that contention. We are of the opinion that a further amount of Rs.5,000/- can safely be awarded under the head pain and suffering. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants then points out that for obscure reasons, amounts have not been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. The deceased was aged 27 years. His parents are shown to be aged 50 years and M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 4 45 years. In these circumstances, we agree that some amount must have been awarded under the head loss of love and affection which we fix at Rs.7,500/-. 7. The main plank of attack is against the compensation for loss of dependency awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal noted that though authentic evidence about income is not available, it can be assumed that the deceased must have been earning an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensum from his employment abroad. Though the appellants claim to be dissatisfied with the said finding of fact, we are satisfied that the tribunal committed no error in reckoning Rs.5,000/- as the reasonable monthly income which the deceased would have earned. Considering the nature of his employment and the future uncertainties including possibilities of his returning to India after some period of time, that assumption does appears to us to be reasonable. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that acceptance of Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income to be reckoned for the purpose of computation for the entire remaining period is fair, reasonable and just. The multiplier is reckoned at 15 and in any view of the matter, we are not M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 5 satisfied that such adoption of the multiplier is justified. Both parents are now in the age group of 45 to 50 and going through the 2nd schedule to the M.V.Act, proper multiplier is 13 and not 15. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the multiplicand should not have been taken at a flat rate for the entire period of 13 years. The deceased, aged about 27 years, is likely to get married at least within a period of 3 years. Thereafter the contribution would have further reduced. With the burden of a nuclear family depending on him, the contribution which the appellants/ claimants can expect from the deceased must certainly be reckoned at a lower rate for the remaining period of 10 years, contends the learned counsel for the insurance company. We find merit in that contention. We are further satisfied that 1/3 of the total earnings can safely be reckoned as the contribution which the parents together would have been entitled to during the said period of ten years. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a total further amount of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand only) more in addition to the amounts already awarded by the tribunal as per the M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 6 details shown below: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- more 2. Medical and miscellaneous Rs.7,500/- more expenses 3. Loss of love and affection Rs.7,500/- more 4. Dependency Rs.65,000/- more [(5,000 x ½ x 12 x 3) plus (5,000 x 1/3 x 12 x 10)] minus 2,25,000) i.e. [(90,000 + 2,00,000) minus 2,25,000)] Total Rs.85,000/- more 9. Needless to say, interest shall be payable on the entire amount from the date of the petition as already directed by the tribunal. 10. In the result, this M.A.C.A is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 7 M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 8 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009