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 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 MACA.No. 1960 of 2008() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1021/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. P.D.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY. 2. ELIYAMMA THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. P.D.THOMAS 3. SHEEBA, AGED 33 YEARS D/O. -DO- 4. SIJU THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. -DO- 5. DEVASSY, S/O. THOMAS (DIED) ALL ARE RESIDING AT PULIYAMTHURUTH VEETIL, ERUMATHALA P.O., KEEZHMADU,ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. E.V.ANTONY @ ANTHAPPAN, ELENJIKKAL HOUSE, EDAVILANGU P.O. 2. A.M.SABU, AREEKKAL HOUSE, MANACKAPADY DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS REGL. MANAGER, REGAL. OFFICE, MITHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN - 35. 4. N.A.UNNI, NAGAPADY HOUSE, EROOR. M.A.C.A. NO.1960/2008 5. SADANANDAN, VATTAPURATHU HOUSE, AYYAMPILLY KAVU ROAD, EROOR DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA. 6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM BRANCH. R3 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW R6 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss A.K.BAHSEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 1960 of 2008 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimants in O.P.(MV) No.1021 of 1999 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 20, 2006 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- for the loss caused to them, on account of the death of Biju Thomas in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these:- Deceased was aged 26 at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.4,355/- per month as an Electrical Supervisor. On December 24, 1998 at about 8.10 a.m. Biju Thomas was walking along the side of the road near Palarivattom. At that time a bus bearing registration No.KEE 6535 collided head on with a lorry bearing registration No.KEF 2369. As a result of the impact, the bus drifted towards the western MACA 1960/08 2 side and knocked down Biju Thomas. He sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained on that day itself while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The claimants are his parents, sister, brother and grandfather. Respondents 1 to 3 as the owner, driver and insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, as the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent. Subsequently, the owner, driver and insurer of the bus are also made parties as additional respondents 4 to 6. 3. Respondents 3 and 6, insurer of the respective vehicles only contested the matter. They filed separate statements, attributing negligence on the part of the driver of other vehicle. 4. This O.P. was jointly tried along with other O.Ps. filed by the injured persons and a common award was passed by the Tribunal. 5. Exts. A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence was adduced by contesting MACA 1960/08 3 respondents 3 and 6. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent, driver of the offending lorry, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The claimants have come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the Insurance Companies. 7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent, driver of the offending lorry, is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- MACA 1960/08 4 Transportation, carriage of : Rs. 5,000/- dead body & funeral expenses. Pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000 Loss of dependency : Rs.1,20,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.1,45,000/- ======== 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has mainly disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of dependency. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, took Rs.1,000/- per month as his contribution to his family for the first five years and for the remaining ten years Rs.500/- per month was taken, on the ground that after five years the deceased would have got married and his contribution would be reduced to 50% of his monthly income. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for the loss of dependency. The claimants produced Ext.A15 certificate, which shows that the deceased was working as an Electrical Supervisor in P.A.C.T. at Kadavanthra and earning Rs.4,350/- per MACA 1960/08 5 month. In the light of the above certificate and in the light of the principles laid down in Laxmi Devi and others V. Mohammad Tabbar and another, 2008 ACJ 1488, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can reasonably be fixed at Rs.4,500/-. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.3,000/- can be taken as his monthly contribution to his family. 10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that as the deceased was a bachelor, at least ½ of the income should be deducted for his personal expenses. We are unable to agree. There is no evidence to show that the parents of the deceased, claimants 1 and 2, and grand father, 5th claimant, have any income. Therefore, they have to be treated as the dependents of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the view that only 1/3rd of the income can be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 11. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15. Taking into consideration the age of the parents of the deceased at the time of the accident as 50 and 45 and as claimants 3 MACA 1960/08 6 and 4, sister and brother, are not dependents, we feel that the multiplier of 13 would be reasonable in this case. Thus, calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 13). Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,48,000/-. 12. For the loss of love and affection, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was aged 26 at the time of the accident, we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,00/- on this count. As compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 13. In the result, the claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization with MACA 1960/08 7 proportionate costs. 14. There is another aspect in this case. There is a delay of 679 days in filing the appeal. At the time of condonation of the delay, we found that the question whether the appellants will be entitled to get interest for the period of delay shall be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that claimants will not be entitled to any interest for the amount awarded during the said period of 679 days. The third respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants. The award is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn