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 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 845 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.808/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S):PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. NEELIMAVUNGAL BEERANKUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY MOLLA, NEELIMAVUNGAL HOUSE, THRIKKULAM, AMSOM AND DESOM CHEMMAD, (PO) TRIRURANGADI. 2. VALIYAPEEDIKKAL SAFIYA, W/O.BEERANKUTTY,AGED 57 YEARS. 3. JAMEELA, D/O.BEERANKUTTY, AGED 38 YEARS. 4. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.BEERANKUTTY, AGED 38 YEARS. 5. SIDDIQUE, S/O.BEERANKUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS. 6. RASIYABI, D/O.BEERANKUTTY, AGED 34 YEARS. 7. HARIS, S/O.BEERANKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS. 8. SAIFFUNNISA, D/O.BEERANKUTTY,AGED 27 YEARS. 9. RAMLABI, D/O.BEERANKUTTY, AGED 25 YEARS. 10. RAIHANATH, D/O.BEERANKUTTY, AGED 24 YEARS. 11. MOHAMMED THAMMEM, S/O.BEERANKUTTY, AGED 18 YEARS (APPELLANTS 2 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT NEELIMAVUNGAL HOUSE, THRIKKULAM, CHEMMAD AMSOM DESOM, P.O.TIRURANGADI) BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.K.P.SUDHEER. Kss ..2/- ..2.... MACA NO.845/2005 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- *1. P.V.BABU, S/O.VASU, PUTHUVATTEL HOUSE, KIZHIPILLIKARA P.O., THRISSUR, (DRIVER OF MINI LORRY).( D E L E T E D) *2. M.K.KUTTAN, S/O.KUNHIVELU, MARATHEZATH HOUSE, VADAKKUMURI (PO), PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR (OWNER).( D E L E T E D) 3. M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO,LTD., S.S.N.SHOPPING COMPLEX, TEMPLE ROAD, TRIPRAYAR, P.O.NATTIKA. * 4. M.K.SUNIL, S/O.KUNHAYYAPPAN, SUNIL NIVAS, PASUKAR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA (PO),(OWNER OF CAR). (D E L E T E D) 5. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, UPHIL, MALAPPURAM (PO). * R1, R2 & R4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DTD. 25/11/2010 IN I.A.NO.3126/2010. R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A.No. 845 of 2005 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.808 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. They are parents, brothers and sisters of deceased Mohammed Koya who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 9, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of death of Mohammed Koya in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on August 9, 1999 at about 12 O' clock in the night. Deceased Mohammed Koya was driving his car bearing registration No.KL-8/C-8889 from Kodakkad to Kottakkal. When the car reached at Pookiparambu, it collided head on with a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-8/E-1130, driven by the 1st respondent. Mohammed Koya sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained on the way to hospital. MACA 845/2005 2 Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, the claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of Mohammed Koya in the accident. 3. Respondents 1and 2, the driver and owner of the offending mini lorry, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending mini lorry, filed a written statement, admitting the policy. Respondents 4 and 5 are the owner and insurer of the car. 4. This O.P. was jointly tried along with other Original Petitions filed by the legal heirs of other deceased persons in the accident and a common award was passed. 5. PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till MACA 845/2005 3 realization and cost of Rs.4,000/-. 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 Company. 7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, driver of the offending mini lorry, is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,13,000/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transport to hospital : Rs. 1,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000/- Loss of estate : Rs.1,10,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.1,13,000/- ======== 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that MACA 845/2005 4 no compensation was awarded for the loss of dependency, loss of love and affection and for pain and suffering endured by the deceased. 10. The Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was taken as his annual contribution to his family, adopted a multiplier of 11 and awarded Rs.1,10,000/- for the loss of loss of estate. It was actually compensation awarded for the loss of dependency. The deceased was working as a driver and earning Rs.3,000/- per month, according to PW1. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that monthly income of the claimant can reasonably be fixed at Rs.3,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.2,000/- can be taken as his monthly contribution to his family, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. Multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- for loss of MACA 845/2005 5 dependency. Thus on this count the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,54,000/-. 11. No compensation was seen awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of love and affection. 12. No compensation was seen awarded for pain and suffering endured by the deceased. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,10,000/- for loss of estate, but it was actually compensation awarded for the loss of dependency. Therefore, we feel that separate compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of estate. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore,we are not disturbing the same. MACA 845/2005 6 14. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to additional compensation of Rs.2,24,000/-.The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum, which appears to be very low. The claimants are entitled to interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The 3rd 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 of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. Sd/-P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn. “O.P.(MV) No.808 of 2001” occurring in the first paragraph of the judgment dated 06/12/2010 in M.A.C.A.No.845/2005 is corrected and substituted as “O.P. (MV) No.808/2000” vide order dated 28/5/2012 in I.A. No.839/2012 in M.A.C.A.No.845/2005. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial