IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 366 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.100/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. U.P.AYISHA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. LATE MOOSSA, CHANNANAPRAVAN HOUSE, KUPPADITHARA, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. MAIMOONA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. LATE MOOSSA, -DO-. 3. SUNEERA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. LATE MOOSSA, -DO-. 4. NOUFAL, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOOSSA, -DO-. 5. NAJU, AGED 16 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O. LATE MOOSA, -DO- ( REP. BY NEXT FRIEND/GUARDIAN/ MOTHER U.P.AYISHA, 1ST APPELLANT) 6. AYISHA, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O. LATE AVULLA, M/O. LATE MOOSSA, CHANNANAPRAVAN HOUSE, KUPPADITHARA, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SHAIK MAMMU, S/O. KUNHEEDU, 11/102, KUNNATH HOUSE, KUPPADITHARA, MUNDAKUTTY POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT. MACA.No.366/2005 2. P.ABU, S/O. AMMED, PANNIYODAN HOUSE, KUPPADITHARA AMSOM, DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, HOSPITAL JN., MANNARKKAD, BRANCH OFFICE AT KALPETTA, KALPETTA POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.366 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.100/2000 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad, who are the wife,children and mother of deceased Moosa, challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 29, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,93,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of deceased Moosa in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these : Deceased Moosa was aged 42 at the time of the accident and as a coolie he used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month, according to the claimants. Claimants are his wife, children and mother. On December 10, 1999 at about 1 p.m., deceased Moosa was travelling in a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-10-D/9583 from Kozhikode to Wayanad. When he reached near Puthuppady, due to the rash and negligent driving of MACA.No.366/2005 2 the vehicle by its driver, the jeep capsized. Deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the hospital on December 12, 1999. According to the claimants, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the dependants and legal heirs of the deceased. Claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending jeep filed a written statement admitting the accident. They further contended that the real owner of the jeep is Anil Kumar, Agali, Palakkad and therefore he is a necessary party to the proceedings. 4. On the basis of the contentions raised by respondents 1 and 2, the present owner of the jeep was impleaded as fourth respondent in the O.P. He remained absent and was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy. MACA.No.366/2005 3 5. Pw1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,93,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,93,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under : MACA.No.366/2005 4 Loss of dependency - Rs.1,80,000/- Transportation - Rs. 500/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 250/- Bystander expenses - Rs. 250/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 2,000/- 9. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the loss of dependency, for loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection. 10. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- which works out to Rs. 18,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 12,000/- was taken was his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- for the loss of dependency. The case of the claimants was that deceased was a coolie and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,500/- which comes to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his MACA.No.366/2005 5 family. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 15 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- ( 20,000 x 15). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. 11. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration the age of the first claimant, widow, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable for loss of consortium. Having regard to the age of the claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable for loss of love and affection. 12. For loss of estate also, no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, for loss of estate, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 13. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded MACA.No.366/2005 6 interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. 14 In the result, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to proportionate cost. The third 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 sv. MACA.No.366/2005 7 MACA.No.366/2005 8