IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2007 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1928 MACA.No. 642 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1631/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND PETITIONER & ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.S.AYSHA BEEVI, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. LATE N.M.SHEREEF 2. SUFEER M.S., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. LATE N.M.SHEREEF, 3. SUNEER M.S., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. LATE N.M.SHEREEF THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT NALADITHUNDI HOUSE, MANAPPATTIPARAMBU, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. T.R.GOPI S/O. RAMAN, PARVATHI BHAVAN, IRITTI ROAD, MATTANNUR P.O., THALASSERY. 2. DINESHAN AMBAN S/O. KUNJIKANNAN, THUMBATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, MATTANNUR P.O., THALASSERY. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COCHIN-682 016. BY // THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 642 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the son of the first appellant, a 22 year old young person, and brother of appellants 2 and 3, in an accident which occurred on 31.12.2000. The Tribunal, taking all the relevant circumstances into account, proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.2,23,123/- as compensation as per the details shown below: i. Medical expenses (supported by bills) :Rs. 1,120/- ii. Transportation and funeral expenses :Rs. 5,000/- iii Shock, pain and sufferings :Rs. 10,000/- iv. Loss of dependency :Rs.1,92,003/- v. Loss of estate :Rs. 10,000/- vi. Loss of love and affection :Rs. 5,000/- Total :Rs.2,23,123/- M.A.C.A. NO.642/2009 2 2. The amount of Rs.1,92,003/- awarded towards loss of dependency is calculated reckoning the multiplicand at Rs.2,000/- and the multiplier at 15. The basis of the calculation is given in the award as follows: i. Contribution upto the age of 28 Rs.16,000 x 6 :Rs. 96,000/- ii After the marriage after deducting further one third Rs.10,667x9 :Rs. 96,003/- :Rs.1,92,003/- 3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellants contends, first of all, that the multiplicand adopted by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- is too low. Secondly, counsel contends that the Tribunal erred in reckoning a low multiplicand - Rs.10,667/- for the latter period of nine years. This is not correct, it is contended. We do not find merit in either of these contentions. There is no better evidence to show the actual income of the deceased who was claimed to be a mechanic aged 22 years. The Tribunal had reckoned the monthly income at Rs.2,000/- and on the basis of the materials available, we are not persuaded to agree that the said decision of the Tribunal warrants appellate interference. M.A.C.A. NO.642/2009 3 4. The contention that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect is found to be not acceptable. It is well settled that in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to ascertain the actual loss of dependency, the age of the deceased and the age of the dependents have to be considered and only the lower of the two multipliers applicable can be accepted. So considered, the Tribunal, committed no error in adopting 15 as the multiplier taking into account the age of the older of the two, i.e., the parents. Adoption of 15 as the multiplier does not warrant any interference. 5. The Tribunal has split the period of 15 years into two. For the first six years, reckoning that the deceased would not have got married, the Tribunal assumed that contribution to the parents would be two-thirds of the earnings of the deceased. The multiplicand adopted for the first six years is, therefore, absolutely reasonable. 6. For the next nine years - after the probable marriage of the deceased, the Tribunal committed no error, according to us, in adopting a lesser multiplicand. In such a situation, it would have been absolutely reasonable to assume that the parents would have got only one-third of the total income of the deceased. If that be so, the appellants would be M.A.C.A. NO.642/2009 4 entitled to only Rs.72,000/- (2000x12x1/3x9). But in the instant case, we find that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.96,003/- as compensation for loss of dependency for the latter period of nine years. In this appeal by the claimants, it is not necessary for us to consider whether the amount awarded is excessive. At any rate, we are satisfied that the award of the Tribunal does not warrant interference on that score at the instance of the appellants. 7. There is no contention and we are not persuaded to feel that the amounts awarded under the other heads demand appellate interference. It follows that the impugned award does not warrant any interference at the instance of the appellants herein . 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.642/2009 5 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.642/2009 JUDGMENT 20th March, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.642/2009 6