IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1682 of 2011 ------------------------------- OPMV 2030/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA .................... APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS :- --------------------------------------------- 1. C.V.RAJAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, CHERUMUKHA, NOORNADU. 2. P.K.PONNAMMA, W/O C.V. RAJAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, CHERUMUKHA, NOORNADU. BY ADVS SRI.T.K.KOSHY SMT.V.V.RISANI RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS : - -------------------------------------------------- 1. SATHEESH V. PILLAI, VALIYAVEETTIL, CHERUMUKHA, IRANIKUDY P.O, NOORNADU- 690 504. 2. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.O. NO.64, MARTHOMA BUILDING, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA.-689 101. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DMR/- R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ --------------------------------------------- MACA No.1682 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are the parents of a deceased person, aged 28 years. Claimants are shown to be aged 56 and 51 years. Deceased was a young man, aged 28 years. He was unmarried. He had got advice memo from the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the Fire Force Department. Before he joined service, he met with an accident on 14.02.1999 and succumbed to the injuries on the next day. Against a total claim limited to Rs.7 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- as per the details given in paragraph-9 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Damage to clothing Rs. 500.00 2 Pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000.00 3 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000.00 4 Loss of dependency Rs.1,62,000.00 (3,000X12X1/2X9) 5 Loss of estate, mental agony etc. Rs. 5,000.00 6 Ambulance charges Rs. 3,500.00 MACA No.1682 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 7 Funeral expenses Rs. 4,000.00 Total Rs.1,90,000.00 The insurance company has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. 2. The challenge is limited to the quantum of compensation payable. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants, first of all, contends that the Tribunal has most unrealistically reckoned the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- only. This is grossly inadequate. Even by looking at the income that the deceased was making at the time of his death, the amount of Rs.3,000/- is inadequate and it must have been reckoned that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal did not even advert to the fact that the deceased was a person who had secured advice from the Public Service Commission for appointment to a Government Department. In these circumstances, the learned counsel argues that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is totally unrealistic and insufficient. 3. The learned counsel then contends that the Tribunal has erred grossly in reckoning only 9 as the multiplier while ascertaining the quantum of compensation for loss of MACA No.1682 of 2011 3 dependency. The mother of the deceased was aged 51 years and for persons of the age group 50-55 years, going by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 11 ought to have been adopted as the multiplier, contends the learned counsel. 4. One half has been deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased and we find that the said course adopted by the Tribunal to be perfectly justified by the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra). 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. This is a patent omission, contends counsel. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that compensation deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. We fix this at Rs.15,000/-. We are further satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency deserves to enhancement. Considering the nature of the evidence available about his personal income and the materials available suggesting the probable stable employment which he was about to secure, we are satisfied that a higher multiplicand deserves to be employed. MACA No.1682 of 2011 4 In coming to this conclusion, we realistically note that the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra) which provides for making provision for future improvement in prospects of employment. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.5,500/- can be reckoned as the multiplicand. We are further satisfied that 11 can be reckoned as the multiplier taking into consideration the age of the mother, i.e. the younger of the two dependent claimants. 7. We are not satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs.2,16,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Sixteen Thousand only) as compensation, as shown below in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Sl.No. Head of claim Amount 1 Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/- (No amount is awarded by the Tribunal) 2 Loss of dependency Rs.2,01,000/- (Rs.5500x12x1/2x11= Rs.3,63,000 minus Rs.1,62,000/-) Total 2,16,000/- 9. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that the MACA No.1682 of 2011 5 Tribunal has not awarded any amount as costs. The counsel argues and we agree that proportionate cost before the Tribunal for the entire amount of compensation hereby awarded, as calculated under Jeena v Satheesh Babu (2011 (3) KLT 943) is liable to be granted. 10. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,16,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Sixteen Thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award. d) We direct that proportionate cost be paid to the claimants for the proceeding before the Tribunal on the entire amount hereby awarded as held in Jeena (supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. SD/- R.BASANT, JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY css/ p.s.to judge