IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1788 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.861/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PATTAMBI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------- 1. LEELA MADHAVAN, W/O. LATE MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT SOORYA SREE, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. PRASANTH, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT SOORYA SREE, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. JAYAKUMAR, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT SOORYA SREE, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SREEKANTH, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT SOORYA SREE, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1788 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Thomas P.Joseph, J. Third respondent-Insurance Company, in O.P.(MV) No.861 of 2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (for short, 'the Tribunal') has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. Heard counsel for appellant and respondents. 3. Point for consideration is whether compensation awarded is excessive requiring interference by this Court. 4. Husband of the first respondent, and father of respondents 2 to 4, a retired District Educational Officer suffered fatal injuries in a motor accident on 3.1.1997. He was hit by the tempo van driven by the first respondent and owned by the second respondent in the Original Petition and which was insured with the appellant (third respondent in the Original Petition). Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo van. That finding is not under challenge. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that compensation awarded is excessive. MACA No.1788/2006 2 5. It is not disputed that the deceased was a retired District Educational Officer. Respondents in this appeal (claimants) produced Ext.A11, pension payment order to show that the deceased was drawing Rs.5,043/- per month by way of pension. It is their further case that the deceased was employed as Instructor in Srilakshmi Education Centre and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Ext.A10 was produced in proof of the same. Tribunal accepted Exts.A10 and A11 and found that total income of the deceased per month was Rs.8,043/- and after deducting one third for personal expenses, contribution to the family was fixed at Rs.5,600/- per month. Taking '8' as the multiplier Rs.5,37,600/- was awarded as compensation for loss of dependency and contribution. A further sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses, Rs.3,000/- for transportation charges, Rs.30,000/- for loss of consortium to the first respondent (widow) and Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection and all other non-pecuniary losses. Thus, total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal came to Rs.6,15,600/-. 6. It is true that as seen from Ext.A11, deceased was drawing monthly pension of Rs.5,043/-. At the same time, Tribunal did not take into account the fact that after the death of the deceased, half of the amount of pension will be paid to the first respondent by way of family pension. Therefore, Rs.2,500/- should have been deducted from the sum of Rs.5,043/- covered by Ext.A11. If that be so, accepting Ext.A10 also the total income of the deceased for the purpose of assessment of compensation should be taken as Rs.5,043/- per MACA No.1788/2006 3 month. However, taking into account the educational qualification and experience of the deceased and the possible increase in the future income as Instructor, we fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- for the purpose of assessment of compensation. Deducting one third for his personal expenses, loss of contribution and dependency to the respondents is Rs.4,000/- per month. Tribunal has rightly taken 8 as the multiplier considering the age of the first respondent. Thus, compensation payable for loss of contribution and dependency comes to Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.4,000 x 2x8) as against Rs.5,37,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. So far as compensation for loss of consortium to the first respondent is concerned, it is seen that Rs.30,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Award must be comparable with awards in similar cases. Deceased was aged 57 years at the time of accident. When the application for compensation was filed in the Tribunal in the year 2003, first respondent was aged 58 years. Taking these aspects and also the normal life span, we are inclined to think that only Rs.10,000/- should have been awarded for loss of consortium. Though it is contended by learned counsel for appellant that compensation awarded on other counts are also excessive, we are not inclined to accept that contention considering the total amount to which the respondents are now found entitled and all other relevant and attending circumstances. Thus, the excess amount awarded in favour of respondents is Rs.1,73,600/-. On deducting that amount from the sum of Rs.6,15,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, MACA No.1788/2006 4 the compensation to which the respondents are entitled comes to Rs.4,42,000/-. That amount will carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part and the compensation payable to the respondents 1 to 4 is modified as Rs.4,42,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and fortytwo thousand only). That amount will carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal. All other directions issued by the Tribunal will remain in force. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks