IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 1302 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1273/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT:3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHALAKKUDY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY MR.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.P.JACOB MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. MUTHAHAMMED, S/O.MERRA SAHIB, PALLIMEDU, ERATTAYIL, KODUMBU P.O, PALAKKAD. 2. SUHARA @ SUHARABEE, W/O.MUTHAHAMMED, DO. DO. 3. MUHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.MUTHAHAMMED, DO. DO. 4. JAFFER SHERIFF, S/O.MUTHAHAMMED, DO. DO. 5. KAJA SHEMEER, S/O.MUTHAHAMMED, DO. DO. 6. SAMEENA, D/O.MUTHAHAMMED, DO. DO. (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 TO 7 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL) R1 TO R4 & R6 BY ADVS. MR.D.KRISHNA PRASAD, MR.D.NARENDRANATH, MR.M.HARISHARMA, SMT.O.K.SANTHA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- MACA NO.1302 OF 2008-F -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 8th June 2009 Judgment JOSEPH, J. The third respondent in OP(MV)No.1273 of 2001 which is the petition filed under S.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, is the appellant. The application was filed by the father, mother, brothers and sisters of one Shri.Majid, who died in a motor accident. Majid was aged 22 years, allegedly, a Mason. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,77,500/- with 6% interest. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of the award, the third respondent preferred the appeal. Cross objection is filed by the respondents. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also respondents 1 to 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would essentially raise the following contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the tribunal has taken 15 as the multiplier. It is pointed out that the father was 47 years old MACA 1302/08 2 and the mother was 42 years also. If the average is taken, the tribunal could not have arrived at the multiplier of 15 . Secondly it is contended that being a petition under S.163-A, the tribunal erred in awarding the sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.500/- for clothing, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection. This is for the reason that the aforesaid heads, under which the amounts were awarded are not contemplated in a petition under S.163A. But, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company fairly concedes that the respondents would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- by way of funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, she would contend that there must be a net reduction of Rs.21,000/- from the amounts already awarded. Thirdly, it is contended that the dependency has been arrived at by taking only 1/3rd. She would submit that the reduction should have been ½. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, going by the decision of the Apex Court, the reduction should have been by ½. The learned counsel for MACA 1302/08 3 the respondents would submit that the notional income is Rs.2,500/-. Since the deceased was a Mason, the notional income would have been Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that this a case where there need not be any increase of notional income. 4. As far as the question relating to reduction of amounts which are awarded towards transport, clothing, pain and suffering, love and affection etc., aggregating to Rs.25,500/- is concerned, there can be no dispute that they are only to be disallowed. The said sum cannot be granted in a petition under S.163-A. But this has to be set off against a total sum of Rs.4,500/-,which the petitioners can be granted under S.163-A. Thus, the appeal of the appellant company is to be allowed in so far it relates to Rs.21,000/-. As far as the contention of the appellant that the multiplier of 15 could not have been adopted is concerned, we would think that the the multiplier on an average would be 14. But, 14 as a multiplier is not contemplated and the next higher MACA 1302/08 4 multiplier is taken. In the facts of this case, we would not interfere with that finding. The last contention of the appellant Company is regarding the reduction to 1/3rd. We notice that apart from the father and mother, there are four siblings. Therefore, we need not reduce any further amount and we feel that the reduction of 1/3rd can be supported. 5. Coming to the contention of the objectors regarding the income being fixed @ Rs.2,100/-, we feel that in the absence of any evidence of any sort, fixing of Rs.2100 in the year 2001 need not be interfered with. Hence we cannot accept that contention. But, we also feel at the same time that the respondents should have been granted interest @ 7.5% instead of 6% as granted. Thus, the result of this discussion is as follows : A sum of Rs.21,000/- is reduced from the total compensation. But the respondents would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. This appeal and cross objection are disposed of as follows : MACA 1302/08 5 The order is modified and the respondents will be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,56,500/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE sta MACA 1302/08 6