IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 1084 of 2001(B) ----------------------- OPMV.61/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS:PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. ANNIE, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, MALAYANKADU HOUSE, KEEZHMADU, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALWAYE. 2. GINSY (MINOR), S/O.LATE JOSEPH, ...DO..DO.... 3. RINCY (MINOR), S/O.LATE JOSEPH, ...DO..DO.... 4. MARY, W/O.LATE FRANCIS, ..DO..DO... (APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND HENCE REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT) BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.CEASAR V.PILLA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. R.SUNDHAR, S/O.RASAPPAN, 10-G, KEMPS TOWN, GOODS SHED ROAD, TRICHY -1, TAMIL NADU. 2. R.CHINNASWAMY, S/O.RAJU, ALAGAMPATTI GRAMAM, NILAKKOTTAL TALUK, DINDIKKAL DISTRICT – 624 001, TAMIL NADU. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., COCHIN – 16. R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1084 OF 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated 13th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Husband of the first appellant died in a motor accident. Wife along with two minor children and mother of the deceased filed an application for compensation. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the lorry insured by the third respondent insurance company. However, against a claim for compensation of Rs.7,62,750/=, only an amount of Rs.2,32,500/= was awarded. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal. The accident occurred on 15.10.1995. Tribunal found that the accident occurred as alleged and the vehicle was insured by the third respondent insurance company. Deceased was a concrete worker. According to the claimants, his monthly income was Rs.3,200/=. Tribunal has taken only Rs.1,500/= as the monthly income and then deducted one third for calculating compensation. It is the contention of the claimants that at least Rs.3,000/= per month should be taken as the minimum wages for construction workers. We note that the deceased was a concrete worker. Even if Rs.100/= per day was received by him and he might have got 24 to 25 days' work in a month, at least Rs.2,400/= could have been fixed as the monthly income and after deducting one-third for MFA.1084/2001 2 personal expenses Rs.1,600/= could have been fixed as the monthly loss of family contribution. Tribunal has taken 17 as the multiplier. Even though it was contended that in view of the increase in life span, reduction in interest rate and in view of the Supreme Court decision that a higher multiplier should be granted when injuries are caused to persons between 20-25, considering the guidelines fixed under the second schedule, we are not enhancing the multiplier. Therefore, compensation payable will be Rs.3,26,400/= (1600 x 12 x 17). Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,04,000/= under this head. So, the additional amount payable under this head will be Rs.1,22,400/=. Claimants also claimed Rs.30,000/= each for loss of consortium and for loss of guidance and support for minor children. Tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/= for loss of consortium considering the young age of the widow. But, no amount was awarded for loss of love to the children. We are of the view that the children lost their father at their very young age (4 and 1 ½). For loss of love and affection and loss of fatherly care, we award Rs.5,000/- each, i.e., an additional amount of Rs.10,000/= under that head. Thus, the additional amount payable will be Rs.1,32,400/=. The above amount should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the decreed amount by the Tribunal. Out of the above amount, MFA.1084/2001 3 Rs.15,000/= is allowed to be withdrawn by the fourth appellant. Half of the balance amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the first appellant and balance in equal proportion should be deposited in the names of appellants 2 and 3 in a nationalised bank for enabling them to withdraw the same when they attained the age of 21. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks