IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 1019 of 2005 ----------------------- (OP(MV).1008/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI ) APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS. ------------------------------- 1. AHAMMED AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIRAYIN. 2. KADEEJA, W/O.AHAMMED, THAIKANDY HOUSE, P.O.PERUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN. RESPONDENT/ 2nd RESPONDENT. ------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD . THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ................................................................................ M.A.C.A. No. 1019 OF 2005 ......................................................................... Dated this the 4th December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: A minor girol aged 9 years was knocked down on 12.05.2000 at about 6 p.m while walking along the road, by a jeep owned and driven by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent, which led to her death occurred on the next day and in turn the claim preferred by the parents. 2. The first respondent, owner cum driver of the jeep chose to remain ex parte. The claim was resisted by the second respondent/Insurer. However, no statutory ground of defence under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act is seen raised or established. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. The only evidence available before the Tribunal was Ext.A1 (copy of FIR), Ext.A2 Postmortem certificate and Ext.X1 ( referred to in paragraph No.5 of the award, but omitted to be shown in the M.A.C.A. No. 1019 OF 2005 2 Appendix). On the basis of the evidence on record, particularly when there was no contra evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was because of the negligence of the owner-cum- driver of the vehicle. 3. With regard to fixation of quantum, observing that the child was aged nine years, only the notional income as prescribed under the Second Schedule, i.e. 15000/- per annum was reckoned for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency. After deducting 1/3rd towards probable personal expenses, the Tribunal, adopting the multiplier of '10', awarded a sum of Rs.One lakh; besides awarding a sum of Rs.1000/- towards transportation expense and Rs.2000/- towards 'funeral expense'; thus granting a total sum of Rs.1,03,000/-, which was directed to be satisfied by the second respondent/Insurer with interest @ 6% per annum. The claimants are before this Court seeking for enhancement of the compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants were not given opportunity to adduce any oral evidence before the Tribunal and that total miscarriage of justice M.A.C.A. No. 1019 OF 2005 3 has been resulted because of the course pursued by the Tribunal in this regard. The Counsel submits that the multiplier applicable in the case of a minor aged 9 years is '15' as given in the Second schedule, whereas the Tribunal has reckoned only '10', so as to compute the probable loss of dependency. We find considerable force in the said submission, since absolutely no reason has been given by the Tribunal for reducing the multiplier from '15' to '10'. Considering the age of the claimants/parents, the multiplier to be adopted is '17', which however could not have been reckoned in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd vs. S. Rajapriaya and others [(2005)6 SCC 236], holding that proper multiplier has to be fixed on the basis of the age of the deceased or the claimants whichever is higher. Thus adopting the proper multiplier of '15' and on re-working the compensation towards 'loss of dependency', we find that a sum of Rs.50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)more is liable to be paid to the appellants. 4. It is seen that absolutely no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of love and affection'. We award a M.A.C.A. No. 1019 OF 2005 4 sum of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under this head. Similarly, no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards 'pain and suffering'. The accident was on 12.05.2000 and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the next day. We award a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) under this head as well. A further sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) is also awarded towards 'damage to clothing', 'probable medical expenses' etc. It is noted that the Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum; which ought to have been awarded at the rate of 7% per annum in view of the various binding judicial precedents as to the rate of interest payable. 5. In the result, the appellants are awarded a further sum of Rs. 66000/- (Rupees sixty six thousand only) as the balance compensation payable in respect of the death of their child. We make it clear that the said amount as well as the amount already awarded by the Tribunal will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. We direct the second respondent/Insurer to satisfy the said amount as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the M.A.C.A. No. 1019 OF 2005 5 judgment. Appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk