IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 2113 of 2005() --------------------- OPMV.72/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .............. APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. BABY, MOOLAVALLIYIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY. 2. NEETHUMOL (MINOR), DATE OF BIRTH 17-07-1993, MOOLAVALLIYIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN BABY, THE 1ST APPELLANT. 3. ANJUMOL (MINOR), DATE OF BIRTH 07-04-1997, MOOLAVALLIYIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN BABY, THE 1ST APPELLANT. 4. JEFFYMON (MINOR), DATE OF BIRTH 13-05-1998, MOOLAVALLIYIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN, BABY, THE 1ST APPELLANT. BY ADV. SRI. K.K. JAYARAJ NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJU UTHUPPAN, MULANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KARIPPADAM P.O. 2. SHAJIMON MATHEW, KARIPURATHU HOUSE, BRAHMAMANGALAM. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI. P. JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A.No. 2113 OF 2005 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV) No. 72 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. They are the husband and minor children of Jaimol who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated May 24, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,28,500/- for the loss caused to them on account of death of Jaimol in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on December 27, 1998 at 6.45 p.m., while Jaimol along with others were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KRF – 60 along Thalayolaparambu – Ernakulam road, a bus bearing registration No.KL-5A/9798 dashed against the jeep. Jaimol and another passenger sustained serious injuries and they succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent, MACA 2113/2005 2 driver of the offending bus, the claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending bus, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting the policy but attributed negligence to the driver of the jeep. It was also contended that there was violation of policy condition. 4. This O.P. was jointly tried along with other O.Ps. filed by the legal heirs of another passenger who died in the accident and other injured persons and a common award was passed. Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 2nd respondent driver of the offending bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,28,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimants have come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MACA 2113/2005 3 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence the 2nd respondent driver of the offending bus is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,28,500/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,000 Damage to clothing : Rs. 500 Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000 Pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000 Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000 Loss of dependency : Rs.2,56,000 Loss of love and affection : Rs. 45,000 ------------------ Total : Rs.3,28,500 ======== 8. The learned counsel for the appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the MACA 2113/2005 4 loss of dependency and on other heads. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum, and after deducting 1/3 for her personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.16,000/- per annum was taken as her annual contribution to her family, adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded 2,56,000/- for the loss of dependency Deceased was aged 37 at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a Tailor in a shop, according to the claimants. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that her monthly income can reasonably be fixed at Rs.2,500/-, which comes to Rs.30,000/- per annum. There are four dependents of the deceased. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR 2009(3) SC 487), only 1/4th of the income shall be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, balance amount of Rs.22,500/- per annum can be taken as her annual contribution to her family. Multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 16 is not seriously MACA 2113/2005 5 challenged. Therefore, for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.22,500/- x 16). Therefore, on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,04,000/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering endured and Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, which appear to be very low. No compensation was awarded for loss of estate. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased died from the hospital and the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. Regarding the apportionment of the compensation amount and disbursement of the same, the direction of the Tribunal will stand. 11. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,29,000/- with interest @ 7.5% MACA 2113/2005 6 p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. It is seen from the records that the appeal was filed with a delay of 336 days. The claimants are not entitled to interest for the enhanced compensation for the said period. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants. 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. mn.