IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 995 of 2005 ------------------------- OPMV.729/1999 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------- 1. HAMEED MANGALA, S/O.LATE MOOSA, AGED 42 YEARS, EMPLOYED ABROAD, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT THAVARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.POOKODE, VIA-PATHAYAKKUNNU, THALASSERY, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.BEEBI, W/O.HAMEED MANGALA. 2. T.BEEBI, W/O.HAMEED MANGALA, AGED 39 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, THAVARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.POOKODE, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.M.BENNY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN T., S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, THALIYIL HOUSE, P.O.PERINGATHUR (RC OWNER AUTORICKASHAW KRC 6845) 2. PULUKKUVAN DASAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, NARAVOOR DESOM, P.K.KUTHUPARAMBA (DRIVER AUTORICKSHAW KRC 6845) 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, THALASSRY. (POL.NO.3176080471405 545/43496) BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.NO: 995 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th August, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J. An 18 year old student sustained fatal injuries on 3.3.1999. His father and mother applied for compensation claiming an amount of Rs.5,11,250/-. Total compensation awarded was only Rs.1,28,500/-, after holding that second respondent driver of the vehicle was responsible for the accident. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. The deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident. It is the contention of the petitioners that taking second schedule for guidance at least 16 should be taken as the multiplier. Tribunal has fixed only 10 as the mutliplier. According to the Tribunal as decided in United India Insurance Co. v. Patici Jean Mahajan and others {2002 7 SBR 581} a lesser multiplier can be adopted when there is higher multiplicant. But in that case it was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court that second schedule should be taken as guidance and only in exceptional cases when the multiplicant is very higher, a lesser multiplier can be adopted. Here, multiplicant is not high (only Rs.1000/- per month). Therefore second schedule should be adopted. But the Honourable Supreme Court has held that when an unmarried person is the victim, age of the claimant should be looked into. Here the father was 42 and mother was 39. Considering the age of the claimants, we are M.A.C.A. 995/05 2 of the opinion that 15 can be taken as the multiplier. 2. The Tribunal has fixed only Rs.1,200/- as monthly income and Rs.800/- has to be taken towards family contribution. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a brilliant student and studying for the Pre degree (plus two). He was efficient in extra-curricular activities and got many prizes in sports activities. It is also submitted that notional income fixed in 1994 under second schedule is Rs.15,000/-. Here the victim was aged 18. He was a brilliant student and there was much expectation to the parents. A higher multiplier should be taken as the incident occurred in 1999. Taking into account the money value etc. from 1999 and considering the fact that this is not a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle was proved, we are of the view that Rs.1,500/- can be taken as the monthly income. After deducting Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/- can be taken as loss of contribution to the family per month. If that be so, taking 15 as the multiplier the compensation payable will be Rs.1,80,000/- (1000 x 12 x 15). Tribunal has granted only Rs.96,000/-. Therefore additional compensation will be Rs.84,000/-. It is submitted that compensation granted for pain and suffering etc. are very low, as he succumbed to the injuries only after fighting for his life for three days. Tribunal has awarded compensation on those aspects considering the documents produced. No medical expenses were reimbursed even though Rs.5,000/- was claimed as medical expenses. Only Rs.600/- as M.A.C.A. 995/05 3 bystander's expenses was granted. Since he was fighting for life for three days life saving medicines had to be administered. We award Rs.3,500/- for medical and incidental hospital expenses. We are of the opinion that compensation granted under other heads are reasonable. Therefore Rs.87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred only) should be deposited by the third respondent-insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. On deposit the appellants are allowed to withdraw the same in equal instalments. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH Judge JJ K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: