IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 61 of 2005(C) ---------------------- OPMV.156/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------ 1. S.ANANDAVALLY AMMA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR. 2. R.REJITHLAL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN, NAIR DO. DO. 3. R.SUJITH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DO. DO. 4. AMMUKUTTY AMMA @ AMMU AMMA, AGED 77 YEARS, MOTHER OF LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. BAIJU SIMON, S/O.ANTONY, EARESSERIL HOUSE, WARD NO.6, KODAMTHURUTHU, PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA TALUK. 2. VARGHESE, S/O.VARKEY, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, WARD NO.6, PALLIPPURAM PANCHAYATH, THIRUNALLOOR P.O. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NEW TOWN HALL BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA. SMT.A.SREEKALA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 61 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 29, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. One Ramachandran Nair, a Sorting Assistant in Railway Mail Service at Ernakulam, died in a motor accident that occurred on July 3, 1998 at 6.30 a.m. at Aroor Church Junction. The accident happened while he was about to get into a private bus bearing Regn.No.KL-7/K-6498, and before he could fully step into the bus, 1st respondent, conductor of the bus, gave double bell and the driver of the bus took the bus forward, as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the hospital on July 5, 1998. 2. The claimants who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased filed the OP before the Tribunal under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs.16 lakhs alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, conductor of the offending bus. Respondents 1 and 2, the conductor and the owner of the offending bus, remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3, insurer of the offending bus, filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the M.A.C.A. 61 of 2005 2 deceased. 3. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. On the side of the contesting 3rd respondent, Ext.B1 was marked. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,68,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and also a cost of Rs.4500/-. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard counsel for the appellants/claimants and the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: loss of dependency Rs.4,32,000/- loss of consortium, love and affection etc. 15,000/- medical expenses 13,000/- funeral expenses 3,000/- pain and sufferings 5000/- M.A.C.A. 61 of 2005 3 7. Counsel for the appellant sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-, which comes to Rs.72000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, Rs.48,000/- was taken as his annual contribution to his family. Adopting a multiplier of 9, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,32,000/- for the loss of dependency. Ext.A7 salary certificate of the deceased shows that he was drawing a salary of Rs.8377/-. Therefore the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking his monthly income as Rs.6000/-. The Tribunal took the multiplier as 9 only. As the deceased was aged 51 at the time of the accident, we feel that a multiplier of 11 would be reasonable in this case. Thus calculated, for the disability caused the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,28,000/- for loss of dependency. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.96,000/- on this count. 8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- for pain and suffering endured by the deceased. In the circumstances of the case we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. M.A.C.A. 61 of 2005 4 9. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,06,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum, which is very low. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation on the compensation already awarded and on the enhanced compensation and proportionate cost. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-