IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 988 of 2008(F) ---------------------- OPMV.655/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT : 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS 1-3 AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,4&5: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.R.JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE REJI CHANDRAN, THIRUVATHIRA, ETTURUTHI, KULATHUMMAL, KATTAKKADA P.O. 2. MASTER BHARADH CHANDRAN (MINOR) S/O.LATE REJI CHANDRAN, -D0-. 3. D.JANAMMA, W/O.LATE THANKAPPAN NAIR, -DO-. 4. ELIAMMA JOHN, W/O.JOHN, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAKUZHA, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THOMAS.C.J., S/O.YOHANNAN, CHARIVUKALAYIL, NARANGANAM. 6. LALITHAMBIA AMBA BHAVAN, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. M/S.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, GANDHARI AMMANCOIL ROAD, PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1,2,3 SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH FOR R1 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R1 SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R7 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ************************* M.A.C.A No.988 of 2008 ****************************** Dated this the 19th day of January 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Insurer of a vehicle, in which the deceased was travelling, is the appellant before us. The deceased suffered injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs awarded a total amount of Rs.9,38,820/- as compensation to the claimants - the young wife, minor child and the aged mother of the deceased. The details of the amounts awarded are given below: Loss of dependency (6495 X 2/3 X 12 X 17) : Rs.8,83,320/- Loss of consortium : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses : Rs. 3,000/- Transportation charges : Rs. 2,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000/- Damage to clothes : Rs. 500/- ..................... Total : Rs.9,38,820/- ...................... M.A.C.A No.988 of 2008 2 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The counsel first of all contends that since it was a collision of two vehicles, responsibility for the accident must have been equally divided among the drivers of the 2 vehicles and saddling the appellant alone with liability to pay the entire compensation is not justified. Police charge sheet was against the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant. It is not disputed that in the course of the attempt to settle the disputes, other claims arising out of the same accident were settled by the appellant accepting the entire responsibility for the accident. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention that the responsibility for the accident must have been split between the drivers of the two vehicles. 3. The counsel contends that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive. The counsel submits that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection - all @ Rs.15,000/-, is excessive. Considering the young age of the widow and the minor child as also the aged mother, we are satisfied that the amounts awarded under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection do not warrant interference. M.A.C.A No.988 of 2008 3 4. Coming to the question of loss of estate, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded. Following the decision in Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121], an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- can be awarded as the conventional amount under the head of loss of estate. We are not persuaded to agree that amounts under the head of loss of estate, loss of consortium etc., though slightly on the higher side, warrant interference by invoking our appellate jurisdiction. 5. The counsel contends that the multiplicand adopted is excessive. We have unassailable evidence about the precise monthly income of the deceased, who was an employee in the Agricultural department in the State of Kerala. We do note that no provision was made for improvement of prospects in employment of the deceased who is shown to be a person aged only 30 years. Even otherwise in the total absence of anything to indicate that the total monthly salary cannot be reckoned as the multiplicand or that any portion of the same would not have been available to the deceased and his family for enjoyment of life by them, we are of the opinion that the multiplicand adopted does not warrant interference. M.A.C.A No.988 of 2008 4 6. No other contentions are raised. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned award does not warrant interference. 7. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-