IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 1278 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.710/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. C.P.RAPPAI, S/O.PAILO, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, PO.MELADOOR, KIZHADOOR E DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT, KERALA 2. ROSILY, W/O.RAPPAI, DO.DO. 3. BIJO, S/O.RAPPAI, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.C.M.ABRAHAM(CHALAMADAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.JAWAHAR, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, EAST PARUMAPALAYAM, PO.KEELSATHAMPUR, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. (DELETED) 2. D.SENTHIL KUMAR, S/O.DORAIRAJ, 37, MAL STREET, VADUMATIPATHY VILLAGE MUSIRI TALUK, TRICHI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU (DELETED) 3. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LT COMPANY LTD., NAMAKKAL BRANCH OFFICE 74/A PARAMATHY ROAD, NAMAKKAL TAMIL NADU PIN-637001 THE NAME OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DATED 20/3/09 IN I.A.NO.788/09. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1278 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the father, mother and brother of the deceased. They are aged 56 years, 46 years and 21 years respectively. The deceased was a person aged 23 years. He had secured admission for the M.C.A course. He had already completed his course and had written the final examination. An amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. Before the tribunal, the 1st appellant examined himself as PW1. The relevant documents to prove the age, qualification etc. of the deceased were marked. The tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of a total amount of Rs.2,83,500/- as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A.No.1278 of 2008 1. Transport expenses to hospital Rs.1,000/- 2. Funeral expenses Rs.3,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.2,500/- 4. Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/- 5. Pain and suffering Rs.6,000/- 6. Loss of dependency Rs.2,56,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 2/3 x 8) Total Rs.2,83,500/- The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 7% per annum. 2. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable amount under the head of loss of dependency. Only Rs.4,000/- per mensum has been reckoned as the probable monthly earnings of the deceased. Only 8 has been reckoned as the multiplier. Going by the age of the mother, 13 must have been reckoned as the multiplier. Going by the age of the father, 8 is the multiplier applicable under the 2nd schedule. The deceased had secured admission for the M.C.A course investing M.A.C.A.No.1278 of 2008 huge amounts and paying a high amount of tuition fees. Amount of Rs.2,83,500/- awarded is not even sufficient compensation for the amount invested for the education of the deceased for the M.C.A course. The potential for lucrative employment for M.C.A qualified person was not considered by the tribunal at all. The mother being aged 46 years only, multiplier must have been reckoned atleast at 13%. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We note that the tribunal has not awarded differential amounts as contribution for the pre-marriage and post marriage period of the deceased. We do take note that the tribunal has only reckoned 8 as the multiplier taking into account the age of the father only. The learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the multiplicand and multiplier reckoned by the Tribunal is absolutely fair and just and they do not warrant any modification. We are satisfied, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs that it would be safe to assume Rs.40,000/- as the average annual contribution by the deceased to his parents and the multiplier can be reckoned at 10. Such a computation, we are satisfied, shall serve the ends of justice eminently. Even though there is challenge raised against the amounts M.A.C.A.No.1278 of 2008 awarded under the other heads shown above, we are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other head deserves modification. 4. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs.1.44 lakhs [(Rs.5000 X 12 X 2/3 X 10=Rs.4,00,000/-) minus Rs.2.56 lakhs] in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate directed by the Tribunal from the date of petition till payment. 6. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-