IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 3118 of 2009(G) ----------------------- APPELLANTS : PEITIONERS ------------------------ 1. M.O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH. 2. LUCY, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.M.O.SEBASTIAN, 3. BOBY SEBASTIAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.-DO- 4. MARIDAS SEBASTIOAN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.-DO- ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUKKUNKAL VEETIL, KONTHURUTHY P.O., THEVARA, COCHIN-13. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. JOY THATTUNKAL, THATTUNKAL HOUSE, PARAYAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. BROTHER PETER V.J.S/O.FRANCIS, COTTALENCO SEMINARY, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP.BY ITS REGL, MANAGER, REGL.OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-35. 4. M.J.BIJU, MUKKUNGAL HOUSE, PANANGAD, PIN-682506. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS REGL, MANAGER, REGL. OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-35. 6. V.V.BENNY, VADAKKEDATH VETTAN, PAZHANGADU, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. 7. MUHAMMED KUNJU, S/O. KAYEE, PUNILMOOTTIL HOUSE, NORTH OF VADA ROPE COMPANY, PUKKATTUPADY, ALUVA. 8. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3, 5 & 8 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.3118 of 2009 ***************************** Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are the father, aged 55 years, mother, aged 44 years and 2 siblings of the deceased. The deceased was a young man aged 20 years, who suffered injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 28.06.2000. He succumbed to his injuries after 19 days while undergoing treatment on 17.07.2000. He claimed to be a marble worker earning an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. 2. Against a total claim of Rs.7 lakhs, the Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of a total amount of Rs.1,90,031/- as per the details given in para.14 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl. No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Transportation and funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 2 Shock, pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000.00 3 Loss of dependency Rs.1,60,031.00 4 Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000.00 5 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs.1,90,031 The 3rd respondent/insurer was made entirely liable to satisfy the impugned award. M.A.C.A No.3118 of 2009 2 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company. Challenge is raised against the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants first of all contends that the monthly income of the deceased was reckoned by the Tribunal unrealistically at Rs.2,000/-. He was a marble worker. Even reckoning him as an unskilled manual worker, the Tribunal ought to have accepted Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income. The learned counsel for the appellants further points out that following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], due provision must be made for future improvement of prospects in employment. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that Rs.3,250/- can be reckoned as the monthly income of the deceased (multiplicand). 4. It is then contended that though the deceased had undergone treatment for a period of 19 days before he succumbed to his injuries, no amount has been awarded towards medical expenses. Even in the absence of any better evidence, M.A.C.A No.3118 of 2009 3 we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can safely be awarded as compensation for medical expenses. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering. The Tribunal has omitted to note the agony of the deceased from the date of the accident to the date on which he ultimately succumbed to the injuries (19 days). We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded as compensation under the head `pain and suffering'. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants then submits that the amount awarded under the head of love and affection (Rs.5,000/-) is painfully low. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. 7. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased till the probable date on which he would have got married. Another 1/3 was deducted after such date on which he would have probably got married. After the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), we are satisfied that one half is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of a deceased bachelor. M.A.C.A No.3118 of 2009 4 8. It is then contended that the multiplier adopted is not correct. The parents of the deceased are shown to be aged 55 years and 44 years. We are satisfied that, that assertion can be accepted. Taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased (44 years), we are satisfied that 14 can be accepted as the multiplier as held in Sarla Verma (supra). Consequently the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency will stand enhanced. 9. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,32,969/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Medical expenses : Rs. 5,000.00 (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) ii) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000.00 (15,000 minus 5,000) iii) Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000.00 (15,000 minus 10,000) iv) Loss of dependency : Rs.1,12,969.00 (3250X12X1/2X14 = 2,73,000 minus 1,60,031) --------------------- Total : Rs.1,32,969.00 ========= M.A.C.A No.3118 of 2009 5 10. We are not persuaded to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded under any other head. 11. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.Rs.1,32,969/- (Rupees One lakh thirty two thousand nine hundred and sixty nine only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified in the impugned award. But we make it clear that no interest amount on the enhanced amount of compensation will be payable for the period of delay in filing this appeal, ie. 592 days; d) Proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation shall be payable to the appellants as held in Jeena (supra); e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) rtr/