IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 869 of 2005() -------------------------------- OPMV.271/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, T.P.CELL, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. FATHIMA, D/O.MAMU, KOLAYADATH HOUSE, KALLADATHUR P.O., KUMARANELLUR, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. AJESH KUMAR, S/O.KUTTAPPA, KANDIRINGATH HOUSE, EDAPPAL AMSOM, THUYYAM DESOM, P.O.EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. K.GEETHA, W/O.SUBRAHMANYAN, KALLINGAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VANGANIKKARA P.O., AYILAKADU, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DIST. 4. S.P.MOHAMMED, S/O.ABDULLA, SEERAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHYANGADI P.O., CHIRAKKAL TALUK, KANNUR DIST. ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company in OP(MV) No. 271/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The first respondent in this appeal who is the claimant in OP is the mother of deceased Kaisumon who died in a motor accident that occurred on 3rd April, 2002 at about 1.15 p.m. near Kumaranellur Vetinary hospital Junction. The accident happened while the deceased and his friend one Abid were walking along the side of the road, they were knocked down by the bus bearing registration No. KLL- 10K/8479. They sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment at the hospital. Alleging negligence against the driver of the bus, the first respondent, the claimants filed O.P u/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs. M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005 2 2. Respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P who are the driver and owner of the offending bus remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, the Insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting the policy of the offending bus. 3. This O.P was jointly tried along with O.P No. 270/2002 filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Abid and a common award was passed. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of claimants. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent, the appellant herein. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent in O.P, the driver of the offending bus and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and a cost of Rs. 1500/-. The Insurance Company has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005 3 compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and that of the claimants. 6. The accident is not disputed. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive ? 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: For loss of dependency :Rs. 3,60,000 For pain and suffering, :Rs. 9,500 loss of estate, for loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc.. --------------- Total :Rs. 3,69,500 ======= 8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, took Rs. 2000/- per month as his monthly contribution to his family and adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- for loss of M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005 4 dependency. 9. The counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company argued that as there was no evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal is not justified in taking his monthly income as Rs. 3000/-. The counsel for the appellant further argued that as the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal should have adopted one half of his income for his personal expenses and adopted a lesser multiplier in this case. We find no merit in the above contention of the appellant. According to the claimants, the deceased was a tailor earning to Rs. 4,000/- per month. Further even a coolie would fetch a minimum income of Rs. 100/- per month in those days. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-. There is no evidence to show that the claimant has any other children. Under these circumstances we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and M.A.C.A. NO. 869 OF 2005 5 reasonable and not excessive. 10. In the light of our above findings, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. A.K. BASHEER Judge P.Q. BARKATH ALI Judge PKK