IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 170 of 2006() --------------------------------- OPMV.1595/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANTS(PETITIONERS 1 TO 3) : ---------------------------------------------------- 1. B.PADMAVATHY AMMA, W/O.LATE VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, KOCHU VEEDU, JANARDHANAPURAM, VARKALA. 2. BINDHU, D/O.LATE VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, KOCHU VEEDU, JANARDHANAPURAM, VARKALA. 3. BEENA, D/O.LATE VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, KOCHU VEEDU, JANARDHANAPURAM, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS : -------------------------- 1. N.PRAKASH, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, MUTHANA P.O., (VIA) VARKALA. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, MENAPARA VEEDU, KOLLAMBALAM P.O. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, ATTINGAL. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ C.M.APPL.247 OF 2006 & M.A.C.A. No. 170 of 2006 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT R. BASANT,J. C.M.APPL.247 OF 2006 This petition is to condone the delay of 2530 days in filing the appeal. In the circumstances of the case, we take a lenient view and allow the application for condone the delay on condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the said period of 2530 days. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A. No. 170 of 2006 The delay of 2530 days in filing the appeal has been condoned subject to the rider that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim any interest on enhanced amount, if any, awarded in this appeal for the said period of 2530 days. 2. Claimants are the appellants. They are the wife and two daughters of the deceased person who suffered C.M.APPL.247 OF 2006 & M.A.C.A. No. 170 of 2006 2 personal injuries and succumbed to such injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 16/10/1995. The appellants herein, along with the parents of the deceased had staked a claim for compensation for a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four lakhs only). The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- along with interest to the claimants. The details of the amount awarded is shown below:- 1. Loss of dependency -- Rs.1,56,000.00 (Rs.1500x12x2/3x13) 2. Loss of consortium -- Rs.10,000.00 3. Loss of love and affection -- Rs.15,000.00 4. Pain and suffering -- Rs. 5,000.00 5. Funeral expenses -- Rs. 2,000.00 6. Incidental expenses -- Rs. 1,000.00 ------------------- Rs. 1,89,000.00 ========== 2. The learned counsel for the appellants assails the quantum of compensation awarded. That the quantum is inadequate is the only plank of challenge. Called upon to be more specific, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the amount awarded under the head of loss of C.M.APPL.247 OF 2006 & M.A.C.A. No. 170 of 2006 3 dependency is painfully low. The Tribunal had unrealistically reckoned the loss of dependency at Rs.1,56,000/- . The monthly income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.1500/- against the assertion that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that while reckoning the multiplicand in a case like the instant one, future prospects for improvement in employment and the inevitable increase in the wages must also have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal to discharge the primary mandate to make just compensation available to the victim. We find force in that contention. We are satisfied that Rs.2,500/- could certainly have been reckoned as the total monthly income of the deceased giving due allowance for increase in prospects. 3. There is a contention that 1/3 of the amount should not have been deducted as personal income of the deceased. We are unable to accept that contention. Taking note of the nature of the employment of the deceased as a C.M.APPL.247 OF 2006 & M.A.C.A. No. 170 of 2006 4 manual worker which definitely would have obliged him to spend more than on his personal expenses, the challenge must be rejected challenge was raised against the multiplier employed. The deceased was aged 45 years, it is submitted. For persons in the age group of 45-50, 13 is the multiplier now accepted in the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[(2009) 6 SCC 121]. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants further contends that no amount is awarded under the head of loss of estate. We are satisfied that a reasonable amount can be awarded under that head also. 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,09,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal as per the details shown below. 1. Loss of dependency --Rs.1,04,000.00 ((2500x12x2/3x13) = 2,60,000 -156000) 2. Loss of estate -- Rs. 5,000.00 ------------------- Total Rs. 1,09,000.00 ========== C.M.APPL.247 OF 2006 & M.A.C.A. No. 170 of 2006 5 6. Though the quantum of compensation awarded under other heads are also challenged, considering the fact that the accident had taken place on 16/10/1995, we are not persuaded to accept the challenge raised against the impugned award under the other heads. 7. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) In addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal, the appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,09,000/- (Rupees one lakh and nine thousand only) as per the details shown above. c) We direct that interest should be payable on the entire amount of compensation from the date of the petition to the date of payment/deposit (excluding the period of 2530 days as already directed C.M.APPL.247 OF 2006 & M.A.C.A. No. 170 of 2006 6 in the application for condonation of delay). d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. e) Considering the period elapsed, we direct that the entire amount can be released to the claimants now. No amount need be retained in deposit any longer. R. BASANT, JUDGE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ln