IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 73 of 2004() --------------------- OPMV.894/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HIGH LANE PLAZA, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENT 1 --------------- 1. AHAMMAD, S/O. ABDUL KADER, RESIDING AT PANNIPPARA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD. 2. BADRUNNISA, RESIDING AT PANNIPPARA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD. 3. ABDUL RAHIMAN N.E., S/O. M.I. IBRAHIM HAJI, HOUSE NO.IV, 439, T.N. MOOLA HOUSE, CHENGALA, KASARAGOD TALUK. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R3 SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R1&2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 73 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JUNE 14, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the 2nd respondent Insurance Company in OP(MV) 894/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated,September 26, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs2 lakhs for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the death of their son Ashfad in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The deceased was a boy aged 6. The claimants are his parents. On April 10, 2000 at about 4.30 p.m. while the deceased was returning from school, he was knocked down by a scooter bearing registration No.KLN-8843 ridden by the 1st respondent. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries stained on April 13, 2000 while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. 3. Respondent No.1, the owner and rider of the offending scooter, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the offending scooter, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants M.A.C.A. 73 of 2004 2 before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation against the respondents and proportionate costs. The 2nd respondent, Insurance Company, has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the counsel for the respondents. 6. The accident is not disputed. As this was a claim filed under sec.163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of negligence does not arise for consideration. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in adopting a multiplier of 20 instead of 15 as shown in the Second Schedule of the Act. 7. The Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of 20, granted a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss of dependency, Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15000/- for medical expenses. 8. Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company argued that under the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier M.A.C.A. 73 of 2004 3 that can be adopted is 15 and that therefore the Tribunal went wrong in taking the multiplier of 20. There is force in the above contention. 9. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in 1995, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.1500/- which comes to Rs.18000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- per annum can be taken as the annual contribution of the deceased to his family. Adopting a multiplier of 15, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.12000 x 15) for the loss of dependency. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. Thus the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,99,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The appellant/2nd respondent shall deposit the amount within two months of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-