IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 2179 of 2005(G) ----------------------- OPMV.807/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS. ------------------------------------- 1. JESSY THOMAS, W/O.LATE THOMAS, CHAKKALTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, OZHATHIL LANE, KOTTAYAM. 2. TEEVA THOMAS, D/O.LATE THOMAS, CHAKKALTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, OZHATHIL LANE, KOTTAYAM. 3. TEJO THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, CHAKKALTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, OZHATHIL LANE, KOTTAYAM. 4. ELIKUTTY TOMMEN, W/O.LATE THOMMAN CHAKLALTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, OZHATHIL LANE, KOTTAYAM. APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, THE FIRST APPELLANT. BY ADV. SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. M/S.POABSONS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTOS, WEST OTHARA, THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY P.A.JACOB, PANACHAYIL HOUSE, WEST OTHARA, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSUARANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY FOR R1 SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 2179 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 30, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in OP(MV) 807/1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. They are the widow, children and mother of one deceased C.T.Thomas who died in a motor accident which occurred on February 19, 1998 at 8.30 p.m. at Nagampadom. While the deceased was riding a scooter, he was knocked down by a Tata Sumo van bearing Regn.No.KL3C/3969 driven by the 1st respondent. Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, driver of the ooffending vehicle, the claimants filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.11,72,000/-. According to the claimants the deceased was aged 50 at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.8000/- per month as transporting contractor and as Manager of Supersole Tyre Retreading Company. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased also. 3. This OP was jointly tried along with another OP filed by M.A.C.A. 2179 of 2005 2 another injured person in the accident and a common award was passed. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.4000/-. 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 Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,36,000/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: loss of dependency Rs.2,08,000/- pain and suffering 5,000/- loss of consortium, love and affection 20,000/- funeral expenses 2,000/- transportation 1,000/- 7. The Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the M.A.C.A. 2179 of 2005 3 compensation awarded for the loss of dependency, for loss of love and affection and for the pain and suffering endured. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, took Rs.16,000/- as his annual contribution to his family. A multiplier of 13 was adopted and a compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- was awarded for the loss of dependency by the Tribunal. The claimants have produced a certificate from the Malayala Manorama Circulation Manager stating that the deceased was engaged in transporting periodicals earning Rs.22000/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs.3500/- which comes to Rs.42,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.28,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The multiplier adopted as 13 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,64,000/-. Thus on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-. 8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for loss of love and affection which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the age of claimants, we feel that a compensation of M.A.C.A. 2179 of 2005 4 Rs.30,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10000/-. 9. Rs.5000/- was awarded for the pain and suffering endured by the deceased, which appears to be very low. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5000/- 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. 10. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,71,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 2nd 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/-