IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 903 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.743/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------- 1. SEKHARAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUVARUNNY, NELLIKATHARA HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM, MOONNUPEEDIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (FATHER OF THE DECEASED) 2. THILOTHAMA SEKHARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.SEKHARAN, NELLIKATHARA HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM, MOONNUPEEDIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED) 3. NIKHILESH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SEKHARAN, NELLIKATHARA HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM, MOONNUPEEDIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (BROTHER OF THE DECEASED). 4. SANTHOSH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SEKHARAN, NELLIKATHARA HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM, MOONNUPEEDIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (BROTHER OF THE DECEASED). 5. DEEPA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.SEKHARAN, NELLIKATHARA HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM, MOONNUPEEDIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (SISTER OF THE DECEASED) BY ADV. MR.N.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI Kss ..2/- ...2.... MACA NO.903/2007 RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. N.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.NALLIAN, 3/117, ANDIGOUNDER COLONY, NETHIMEDU, SALEM-2 (OWNER OF THE LORRY TN-27/3232) 2. VENKATESAN, S/O.MRAPPAN, 82, SANKARI MAIN ROAD, NETHIMEDU, SALEM. (DRIVER OF THE LORRY TN-27/3232). 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO.LTD BRANCH OFFICE - III, SALEM, TAMIL NADU. (INSURER: POLICY NO.170803/31/021/16/36468/99 VALID FROM 19-10-99 TO 18-10-2000). R3 BY ADV. MR.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. -------------------------------------------- MACA.No. 903 of 2007 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the death of the son of appellants 1 and 2 who is the brother of remaining appellants. We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. The deceased was only 27 years of age at the time of accident and he was unmarried. According to the appellants, he was the sole bread winner of the family consisting of appellants 1 and 2 and unmarried sister of the deceased. The other two appellants who are brothers of the deceased got married and are settled. Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that major sister cannot be treated as a dependent of the deceased. The accident occurred in Tamil Nadu when the car in which the deceased was travelling hit against a truck. 2. After hearing both sides and on going through the award, we feel enhancement of compensation is called for under various heads. However, going by the age of the mother and father of the deceased the multiplier applied viz. 5 is correct and does not call for any modification. Even though counsel submitted that unmarried sister is also depending on the deceased, we do not think compensation can be MACA.903 /2007 2 granted based on the age of the deceased because sister is not a legal heir and multiplier to be taken is the higher one. Parents are the claimants and therefore it should be based on the age of the parents. Appellants counsel submitted that the deceased was a wholesale merchant in vegetable and he was collecting vegetables from Tamil Nadu and bringing to Kerala for selling the same in Kerala. Besides this he has pointed out that the deceased had a heavy vehicle driving licence. Even though the evidence is lacking about the income of the deceased, we feel the monthly income fixed by the MACT at Rs.2000/- is very low because the deceased was only 27 years of age and at the time of the accident he was stated to be a businessman. In any case he was a young man with a heavy driving licence and he was capable of earning atleast Rs.150/- a day. Therefore we refix the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- p.m. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the appellants are entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency on a net monthly income of Rs.3000/-. Going by the same multiplier appellants 1 and 2 would be entitled to compensation for Rs.1,80,000/- as against Rs.80,000/- granted by the MACT. 3. Even though the sister is not a dependent under the MACA.903 /2007 3 Succession Law, an unmarried sister certainly can expect substantial benefits from the earning brother. He has moral obligation to get her married to settle life. Moreover Sister is entitled to compensation for love and affection. Therefore, we grant Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the sister. The deceased died in Selam, whereas the appellants are residing in Thrissur. Obviously the compensation for transportation granted for the relatives to go to the place of death and to bring to the dead body to Kerala at Rs.2000/- is very low. We grant additional compensation of Rs.6000/- under this head. The additional compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- granted by us will carry interest at the rate 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realisation. Except Rs.25,000/- and interest granted by us to the 5th appellant, the remaining enhanced compensation with interest at 7.5.% p.a. will go to the parents of the deceased equally. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Pmn/ The figure “Rs.1,60,000/-” appearing in line 10,page 3 of the judgment dated 21.1.2009 in MACA.No.903/2007 is corrected as MACA.903 /2007 4 “Rs.1,31,000/- vide order dated 28.7.2009 in I.A.No.1975/2009. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)