IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 MACA.No. 75 of 2006() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1177/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1. C.H.HANZAKUTTY, S/O.HASSAN HAJI, CHELAKKADAN HOUSE, P.O.MUNDA, VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AYISHA, W/O.HAMZAKUTTY, DO. DO. 3. SHAREENA, W/O.LATE MOHAMMED NISHAR, DO. DO. (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL). ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR & P.Q.Barkath Ali JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.75 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15 th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramkumar J In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act for short), the Insurance company challenges the award dated 13.10.2005 passed by the MACT, Manjeri in O.P.(M.V) No.1177/2001. 2. This was a case of death. The deceased Mohammed Nishar aged 27 years was driving a maruthi car along the Payyannur- Kanhangad public road. While so, a lorry came from the opposite direction and dashed against the maruthi car, at 6.45 am on 06.7.2000, resulting Mohammed Nishar sustaining fatal injuries to which he succumbed on 06.7.2000. The parents and the re-married widow of Mohammed Nishar preferred a claim before the MACT. The total claim was for `6,50,000/-. Mohammed Nishar was aged 27 years at the time of his death. It was alleged that he was an auto electrician getting a monthly salary of `6,000/-. But M.A.C.A. No. 75 of 2006 2 the tribunal did not accept the said monthly salary for want of evidence and took his monthly salary as `2500/-. Deducting 1/3rd therefrom and adopting 18 as the multiplier, the tribunal fixed the dependency compensation at `3,60,000/-. A sum of `10,000/- was awarded towards pain and sufferings. `1,000/- was given towards transport, `2,000 towards funeral expenses, `2,500/- towards loss of estate and `1,000/- towards extra nourishment and bystander expenses. The tribunal accordingly awarded a total amount of `3,76,500/-. 3. According to the appellant since the 3rd claimant before the tribunal was none other than the remarried widow of deceased Mohammed Nishar, she was not entitled to any compensation. The tribunal had apportioned 1/3rd of the compensation to the said lady. Since the other claimants were the parents who were aged 52 and 44 respectively, the tribunal, according to the appellant, should have adopted 14 as the multiplier and also should have deducted ½ from the monthly income instead of 1/3rd. M.A.C.A. No. 75 of 2006 3 4. We are inclined to accept the aforesaid contention raised by the insurer with regard to the entitlement of the widow of Mohammed Nishar to 1/3rd of the total compensation. Similarly there is some force in the contention regarding the multiplier as well. But we see that the tribunal took only `2,500/- as the monthly income. There was no dispute that deceased Mohammed Nishar was an auto-electrician. The judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court will clearly justify the fixation of at least `4,000/- as the monthly income of Mohammed Nishar. The tribunal had fixed a very low amount as the monthly income of the deceased. The multiplier was slightly on the higher side. But then the tribunal did not award any amount by way of loss of consortium and towards love and affection. Even the amount of `10,000/- towards pain and suffering awarded by the tribunal was on the lower side since the deceased had survived for 15 days after the accident and was struggling for his life. Taking this also into account, eventhough we find force in the contention of the appellant M.A.C.A. No. 75 of 2006 4 that the multiplier taken as 18 was on the higher side instead of 14, we are convinced that the other heads of compensation awarded by the tribunal was certainly on the lower side. 5. In the case of the 3rd claimant before the trial court namely Shareena, there is no dispute that she had remarried within one year of the accident and it was admitted even in the claim petition that she had already remarried. In this appeal eventhough she was attempted to be served with notice she could not be served due to the fact that she is abroad. At best, she would have been entitled only to loss of consortium and a portion of the compensation towards love and affection. We fix the sum of `25,000/- as the total amount payable to Shareena. The balance amount out of the total compensation of `3,76,500/- awarded by the tribunal below shall be equally divided between the parents of Mohammed Nishar., The result of the foregoing discussion is that eventhough we partly uphold the contention of the appellant M.A.C.A. No. 75 of 2006 5 with regard to the 3rd claimant, having regard to the fact that the total award made by the tribunal is on the lower side, we do not interfere with the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed clarifying the position that Shereen, the 3rd claimant shall be entitled only to the sum of `25,000/- out of the total amount awarded by the MACT. Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sj