IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 369 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1085/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC RESPONDENT(S)APPLICANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. VASANTHA, AGED 37, D/O.LATE BHAGAVATHY PARAYAMVILAKOM, LEKSHAMVEEDU COLONY,C-17/165 THOZHUKKAL DESOM, PERUMPATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. SHYLA, AGED 30, D/O.BHAGAVATHY DO...DO... 3. VARGHESE, AGED 40, S/O.JOHN DRIVER, KSRTC, NEDUMANGAD DEPOT. BY // THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 369 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The first respondent before the Tribunal/owner of the vehicle - the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant before us. The claimants before the Tribunal are two daughters aged 37 years and 30 years of a deceased woman aged 55 years. She was a coolie by occupation. The claim was for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,58,500/- as compensation. The claimants have not challenged the impugned award. It is the first respondent, owner of the vehicle who has come up before this Court to challenge the award. 2. The Tribunal reckoned the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- and accepted 8 as the multiplier, considering the age of the deceased given as 55 years. As per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 8 is the admissible multiplier for a person aged between 55 and 60 years. Thus, loss of dependency was reckoned at Rs.1,28,000/- (2000 x 12 x 8 x2/3). A further total amount of Rs.30,000/- was awarded M.A.C.A. NO. 369/2009 2 under the other heads of loss of love and affection, transportation to the hospital, pain and suffering, funeral expenses, loss of estate etc. 3. The owner of the vehicle/the appellant herein claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Called upon to explain the specific grounds of challenge, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- awarded as compensation for loss of dependency along with a further amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss of estate is in any way excessive and that the Tribunal erred in reckoning Rs.2,000/- as the probable monthly income of the deceased without any better evidence. At any rate, the award of a further amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate is not justified at all, contends the learned counsel. 4. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We note that a total amount of Rs.1,58,500/- alone has been awarded as compensation. Even going by the structured formula in Schedule 2, the claimants would have been entitled for a much higher amount. We are not satisfied that the Tribunal committed any error warranting appellate interference in reckoning the monthly earning of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-. It is true that in 1994, by an amendment of the statute, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is permitted to be reckoned as notional income even when the deceased is a M.A.C.A. NO. 369/2009 3 non earning person. The acceptance of Rs.2,000/- as monthly income does not, in the circumstances, warrant any interference. Nor are we satisfied that the further amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of estate, in the circumstances, warrants appellate interference. Considering the totality of the evidence, we are of the opinion that Rs.1,58,500/- awarded as compensation is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO. 369/2009 4 R. BASANT & & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.369/2009 JUDGMENT 16th February, 2009