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 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 176 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1291/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 IN OP(MV). ------------------------------------------------------ 1. DANTY M.O., S/O. OUSEPH, MADAVANA HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O. 2. SHANTY M.O., D/O. OUSEPH, MADAVANA HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O. 3. BINDU M.O., D/O. OUSEPH, MADAVANA HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O. 4. BINOY M.O., S/O. OUSEPH, MADAVANA HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV). ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANRHAPURAM. 2. K.D.JAIN, S/O. DEVASSY, KARAKKAL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O., THRISSUR. 3. SAVY, S/O. JOSEPH, PALAPPAKATH HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O. 4. P.C.JOY, S/O. CHAKKU, PANDIPILLY HOUSE, PULINKARA, KUTTICHIRA P.O. 5. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R5 SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010 ALONG WITH MACA NOs. 178/05, 180/05 & 200/05 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A Nos. 176/2005, 178/2005, 180/2005 & 200/2005 ---------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT -------- Barkath Ali, J. All these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act arise out of a common judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda dated August 31, 2004. The appellants in M.A.C.A No. 176/05 are the claimants in OP(MV) No. 1291/1999 who are the children and legal heirs of the deceased Elsy Ouseph, appellants in M.A.C.A No. 178/05 are the claimants in OP(MV) No. 1293/99 who are the husband and children of the deceased Rosy, appellants in M.A.C.A No. 180/05 are the claimants in O.P(MV) No. 1290/99 who are the husband and children of deceased Lilly and appellants in M.A.C.A No. 200/05 are the claimants in OP(MV) No. 1292/99 who are the husband and children of deceased Mary. M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 2 2. The deceased persons died in a motor accident that occurred on September 30,1999 at about 10.15 a.m. at Vazhakkumpara on the Thrissur-Palakkad sector National High way. The accident happened while the Jeep in which deceased persons were travelling collided head on with a K.S.R.T.C bus bearing registration No. KL-15/1896, driven by the 2nd respondent. Alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent the claimants have filed the above O.Ps before the tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. 3. The first respondent, the Managing Director of the KSRTC and the 2nd respondent filed a joint written statement admitting the accident but attributed negligence to the driver of the Jeep involved in the accident. Respondents 3 and 4, the owner and driver of the offending Jeep involved in the accident filed a joint written statement and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent. 5th respondent, the insurer of the Jeep admitted the policy of the Jeep. All the above M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 3 O.Ps and other O.Ps filed by the injured persons were jointly tried by the Tribunal and a common award was passed. 4. PWs 1 to PW8 were examined and Exts. A1 to A45 were marked on the side of appellants/claimants and Ext. B1 was marked on the side of Respondents. 5. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,97,300 in OP(MV) No. 1291/99, Rs. 1,97,300/- in OP(MV) No.1293/99, Rs.2,51,352/- in OP(MV) No. 1290/99 and Rs. 1,73,300 in OP(MV) No. 1292/99 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost against respondents 1 and 2. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 4 7. The accident is not disputed. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arise for consideration whether the appellants are entitled to any enhanced compensation ? M.A.C.A No. 176/2005 (OP(MV)No. 1291/99) 8. The appellants in this appeal are children of deceased Elsy Ouseph. They are the claimants 2 to 5 in the O.P.The first claimant, husband of the deceased died during the pendency of the O.P. 9. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,97,300/-.The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: Expenses for transport to hospital Rs. 800 Funeral expenses Rs.2000 Loss of estate Rs.2500 Love and affection Rs.16000 Loss of consortium Rs.10000 pain and suffering Rs.10000 Loss of dependency Rs.156000 10. The counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 5 dependency and on other heads. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/- and as the deceased was aged 49 at the time of accident,the multiplier of 13 was adopted and after deducting 1/3 of her personal expenses awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,56,000/- for loss of dependency. Deceased was a quarry worker earning to Rs. 4,500/- per month according to the claimants. Taking into consideration of that aspect, we feel that her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,250/- which comes to Rs.27,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for her personal expenses, balance amount of Rs. 18,000/- can be taken as her annual contribution to her family. The Multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged.Thus, calculated for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/-.Thus, on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.78,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 6 M.A.C.A No. 178/2005 (OP(MV) No.1293/99) 11. The appellants in this appeal are husband and children of the deceased Rosy. They are the claimants 1 to 4 in the O.P. 12. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,97,300/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: Transportation expense :Rs. 800 Funeral expense :Rs.2000 Loss of estate :Rs.2500 Love and affection :Rs.16000 Loss of consortium :Rs.10000 Pain and suffering :Rs.10000 Loss of dependency :Rs.156000 13. The counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency and on other heads. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1500/- and as the deceased was aged 49 at the time of accident the multiplier of 13 was adopted and after deducting 1/3 of her personal expenses awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,56,000/- for loss of dependency. Deceased was a quarry worker earning to Rs. 4,500/- per month according to the claimants. Taking into consideration M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 7 of that aspect, we feel that her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,250/- which comes to Rs. 27,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for her personal expenses, balance amount of Rs. 18,000/- can be taken as her annual contribution to her family. The Multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus, calculated for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,34,000/-. Thus, on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.78,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. M.A.C.A No.180/05( OP(MV) No. 1290/99) 14. The appellants in this appeal are husband and children of the deceased Lilly. They are the claimants 1 to 3 in O.P. 15. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,51,352/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 8 Transportation expense Rs. 800 Wages to attendants and Rs. 300 extra nourishment Medical expense Rs.28752 Funeral expense Rs. 2000 Loss of estate Rs. 2500 Pain and suffering Rs.12000 Love and affection Rs.15000 Loss of consortium Rs.10000 Loss of dependency Rs.180000 16. The counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency and on other heads. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1500/- and as the deceased was aged 40 at the time of accident a multiplier of 15 was adopted and after deducting 1/3 of her personal expenses awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- for loss of dependency. Deceased was a quarry worker earning to Rs. 4,500/- per month according to the claimants. Taking into consideration of that aspect, we feel that her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2,250/- which comes to Rs.27,000/-per annum. After deducting 1/3 for her personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.18,000/- can be taken as her annual contribution to her family. The Multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus, calculated for the M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 9 loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-. Thus, on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.90,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. M.A.C.A. No.200/2005(OP(MV) No.1292/1999) 17. The appellants in this appeal are husband and children of the deceased Mary. They are the claimants 1 to 5 in O.P. 18. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,73,300/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: Transportation expense Rs.800 Funeral expense Rs.2000 Loss of estate Rs.2500 Love and affection Rs.16000 Loss of consortium Rs.10000 Pain and suffering Rs.10000 Loss of dependency Rs.132000 19. The counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 10 dependency and on other heads. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1500/- and as the deceased was aged 52 at the time of accident the multiplier of 11 was adopted and after deducting 1/3 of her personal expenses awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- for loss of dependency. Deceased was a quarry worker earning to Rs.4,500/-per month according to the claimants. Taking into consideration of that aspect, we feel that her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,250/- which comes to Rs.27,000/-per annum. After deducting 1/3 for her personal expenses, balance amount of Rs. 18,000/- can be taken as her annual contribution to her family. The Multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus, calculated for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,98,000/-. Thus, on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.66,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. M.A.C.A Nos.176/2005, 178/2005,180/2005 & 200/2005 11 20. Thus, the respective claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.78,000/- in O.P(MV) No.1291/99, Rs. 78,000/- in O.P(MV) No. 1293/99, Rs.90,000/-in O.P(MV) No. 1290/99 and Rs.66,000/-in O.P(MV) No. 1292/99 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. As the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending K.S.R.T.C bus and the 1st respondent, being the owner of the offending bus, the first respondent is liable to pay the compensation and the 1st respondent shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The above appeals are disposed of as found above. Sd/- A.K. BASHEER JUDGE Sd/- P.Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE PKK