IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 820 of 2007(F) OPMV.1476/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD ........................................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANTS/PETITIONERS 1. HELEN MARY RITA,W/O.SELVARAJ, KANAKKAN VEEDU, KOZHIPPARA P.O., VADAKARAPATHY,CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD. 2. JOHN BRITTO, S/O.LATE SELVARAJ, 3. ANTONY VINOD, S/O.LATE SELVARAJ. 4. CHINNAPPAN, S/O.SUSAL, F/O.LATE SELVARAJ. 5. ANTONIAMMAL, M/O.LATE SELVARAJ, APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT. BY ADV.MR.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. 1. J. THOMAS JAYASINGH, JERRY CHEM INDUSTRIES, S.F.NO.18, MADUKKARAI MARKET,COIMBATORE. 2. ASOK KUMAR S/O.VELAN, AMBALAPARAMBU VEEDU, KINAVALLOOR P.O., PARALI, PALAKKAD. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., SURYA COMPLEX, IB ROAD, PALAKKAD. R3 BY ADV. MR.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.820 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the day 24th of NOVEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J 1. The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the death of a pedestrian. 2. The deceased was walking along the side of the road on 7/10/2000 and at about 11p.m., he was knocked by a lorry bearing registration No.TN-38A/6897 causing fatal injuries leading to his death. The lorry was owned by the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent. 3. In the claim preferred by the widow, two minor children and the parents of the deceased, attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, a total sum of Rs.5,40,000/- was sought for as the compensation. It was contended that the deceased was having employment M.A.C.A. No. 820 of 2007 2 as a Part-time Sweeper in a Government Ayurveda Dispensary, earning a salary of Rs.1,880/- per month and also was having part-time engagement as a Ticket Examiner in a Cinema Theatre, earning a further salary of Rs.1,700/- per month. 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and the documents produced as Exts.A1-A9 from the part of the claimants. No evidence was adduced from the part of the respondents. 5. It is relevant to note that the claim was mainly contested from the part of the respondents on negligence and quantum. No statutory ground of defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is seen raised from the part of the Insurer. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal analysed the evidence on record and arrived at a finding that the accident was solely due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, driver of the lorry and hence that the claimants were liable to be compensated by M.A.C.A. No. 820 of 2007 3 the respondents. 6. Observing that no legally acceptable evidence was adduced from the part of the claimants to substantiate the engagement and income derived as a Ticket Examiner in a Cinema Theatre, the Tribunal chose to reckon only the salary as shown in Ext. A8 Salary certificate i.e. Rs. 1,880/- per month. After deducting one third towards the probable personal expenses of the deceased, and adopting the multiplier of '16', the loss of dependency was worked out as Rs.2,21,568/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation under other permissible heads as well, fixing the total compensation as Rs.2,60,100/-, which was directed to be satisfied by the insurer with interest @6% per annum. The contention of the appellants is that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are much on the lower side and even the calculation effected by the Tribunal in computing the loss of dependency suffers from some arithmetical mistake. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company M.A.C.A. No. 820 of 2007 4 seeks to sustain the finding and reasoning, stating that it is very much in conformity with the materials on record. 7. As observed hereinbefore, no evidence was adduced from the part of the respondents to rebut the pleadings and the evidence tendered from the part of the claimants. It is also relevant to note that the deceased was running a considerably large family consisting of his wife, two minor children and the aged parents. In the said circumstances, also taking note of the future prospects in the Government employment and the part time engagement as a Ticket Examiner in the Cinema Theatre, we refix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. After deducting one third towards the probable personal expenses, Rs.2,000/- is treated as the monthly contribution to the family; thus fixing the multiplicand as Rs.24,000/- per annum. The multiplier of '16' is correctly based on the higher age factor of the deceased (37yrs). On reworking the compensation towards the loss of dependency, it comes to Rs.3,84,000/-. After M.A.C.A. No. 820 of 2007 5 giving credit to the amount of Rs.2,21,568/- awarded by th Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.1, 2,432/- as the balance amount towards the loss of depen ency. 8. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of love and affection. Considering the fact that there were 5 claimants who were the dependents of the deceased, we grant a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head. Nothing has been awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of estate; for which, the appellants are granted an amount of Rs.2,500/- as well. 9. In the result the appellants are awarded a further sum of Rs.1,74,932/- towards the balance compensation payable. We hereby made it clear that the said enhanced compensation as well as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal will carry interest @7% per annum. The balance amount payable as above shall be deposited by the third respondent/insurance company before the Tribunal as M.A.C.A. No. 820 of 2007 6 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation granted shall be permitted to be withdrawn only on payment of the balance court fee, if any. Appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE nl