IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 274 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.2031/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS 1 AND 3 -------------------------------------------- 1. ARIFA BEEVI D/O. SAINABA BEEVI, OLAKKARA VEEDU, KANJAVELLY P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SHYBA D/O. ARIFA BEEVI, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND PETITIONER NO.2 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED NAVAS S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, SHANOOR BHAVANAM, VADAKKEVILA.P.O., KOLLAM 2. RAJENDRAN PILLAI S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, RADHA MANDIRAM, CHITTAYAM, PERINAD.P.O., KOLLAM 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PARAMESWARAN PILLAI BHAVAN, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM. 4. NIZAR S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN KUNJU, OLIKKARA VEEDU, KANJAVELLY P.O., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.K.RAJEEV FOR R1 & R2 SRI.M.R.SABU FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.274 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th 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 claimed compensation for loss suffered consequent to the death of their son/brother in a motor accident. An amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1.47 lakhs as compensation under the three heads shown below. Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- Loss of dependency Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.1,500 x 12 x 2/3 x 11) No other amounts were awarded. The deceased was a person aged 27 years. He was a worker apprentice in the Quilon Co- operative Spinning Mills. He was getting a stipend of Rs.45/- per working day. Had he been absorbed as a regular employee, which the claimants asserted was imminent, he would have earned an income exceeding Rs.3,500/- per mensum. At the time of his death, he has not been so confirmed in employment. If confirmed, he would have been entitled to continue in service till the age of superannuation, that is 58 years, it was urged. M.A.C.A.No.274/2004 2 2. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge which the appellants want to mount against the quantification of the amounts in the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants first of all contends that there has been an inadvertent omission to grant compensation under the head of pain and suffering. It is true that the deceased had expired on the date of the accident and was pronounced dead when he was taken to the hospital; but definitely some amount must have been awarded as compensation under the head of pain and suffering, it is submitted. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. We are satisfied that a further amount of Rs.15,000/- can safely be awarded as compensation under the head pain and suffering. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants then contends that considering the age of the deceased - 27 years, a much higher multiplier must have been adopted by the Tribunal. Going by the 2nd schedule, 18 must have reasonably been accepted as multiplier, contends the learned counsel for the appellants. Instead, the Tribunal only reckoned 11 as the multiplier. We are afraid, this contention cannot be accepted. The dependent is the mother and the age of the mother, it is admitted, is 53 years and the appropriate multiplier even going by the 2nd schedule is 11. That multiplier has been adopted by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.No.274/2004 3 4. The learned counsel for the appellants then contends that, at any rate, accepting the notional income as Rs.1,500/- is not fair and reasonable or just. It is true that the deceased was at the time of his death working as a worker apprentice; but it was reasonably certain that he would have got confirmed in such employment and that is why he was willing to work for a meager remuneration of Rs.45/- per day during the period of his apprenticeship. It is artificial and unrealistic not to take note of the fact that immediately on completion of apprenticeship, he would have been absorbed as a permanent employee and would have received a minimum amount exceeding Rs.3,500/- which is evident from Ext.A5 certificate, argues counsel. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that merely because the appellant was working for a much lower remuneration as an apprentice at the relevant time, that cannot mechanically be accepted as the multiplicand. Reasonable inferences have got to be drawn. Computation of compensation is an art and a science. Reasonable probabilities have got to be taken into account. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that, in any view of the matter, the amount of Rs.1,500/- adopted as multiplicand is not sufficient. 5. We do also take note of the reasonable possibility that the deceased might have got married and thereupon his contribution to M.A.C.A.No.274/2004 4 his mother and sisters may have got reduced. Taking all the circumstances into account, we are persuaded to feel that reckoning Rs.2,000/- as the multiplicand, retaining the multiplier as 11, shall serve the ends of justice eminently. Consequently, the appellants are found entitled to receive a further amount of Rs.44,000/- i.e. [Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 11) minus 1,32,000/-] under the head loss of dependency. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.59,000/- (Rs.15,000 + Rs.44,000) more in addition to the amounts already directed by the Tribunal. The appellants shall be entitled for interest on the entire amount as directed by the Tribunal. 6. In the result, this M.A.C.A is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.274/2004 5 M.A.C.A.No.274/2004 6 R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009