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 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1272 of 2011 ----------------------- OPMV.1111/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT : 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., IRINJALAKUDA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SIBI JOY, PANDALUKARAN HOUSE, PALAPPILLY, K.KUNNU P.O., PIN-691585, MELOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. ANGLE TREESA P. (MINOR), (D.O.B.09.09.2000), D/O.JOY, PANDALUKARAN HOUSE, PALAPPILLY K. KUNNU P.O., PIN-691585, MELOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. THOMAS JOSEPH P.,(MINOR), D.O.B. 17.04.2002),S/O.JOY,PANDALUKARAN HOUSE, PALAPPILLY K.KUNNU P.O.,PIN-691585, MELOOR VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, (RES.2,3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REP. BY THEIR MOTHER SIBI JOY IST RESPONDENT). 4. OUSEPH, S/O.ANTHONY, PANDALUKARAN HOUSE, PALAPPILLY K. KUNNU P.O., PIN-691585, MELOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, (FATHER OF DECEASED JOY P.O.). 5. THRESYA, W/O.OUSEPH, PANDALUKARAN HOUSE, PALAPPILLY K.KUNNU P.O., PIN-691585, MELOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, (MOTHER OF DECEASED JOY P.O.). MACA.No. 1272 of 2011 - 2 - 6. BENZEN P.M., S/O.MICHAL, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, JAWAN ROAD, KOORKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680697. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1272 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Insurance company is the appellant. The insurance company challenges the quantum of compensation awarded. Claimants are the wife, aged 32 years, two minor children, aged 5 and 4 years and parents, aged 79 and 77 years, of a person aged 37 years, who succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 09.05.2006. He succumbed to the injuries after few hours, during which period he underwent treatment. He was a school teacher by profession and his monthly income at the time of his death was Rs.11,285/-. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned award, against a total claim limited to Rs.25 lakhs, awarded an amount of Rs.23,24,337/- as compensation as per the details given in para.12 of the award which we extract below: i) Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,500.00 ii) Damage to cloths etc. : Rs. 250.00 iii) Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,500.00 iv) Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000.00 M.A.C.A No.1272 of 2011 2 v) Loss of estate : Rs. 2,500.00 vi) Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000.00 vii) Loss of dependency : Rs.22,85,280.00 (12,696 X 12 X 15) viii) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000.00 ix) Treatment expenses : Rs. 6,307.00 ---------------------- Total : Rs.23,24,337.00 ========= 3. The challenge by the appellant is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant challenges the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. An amount of Rs.22,85,280/- (11,285 X 75/100 X 150/100 X 12 X 15) was awarded under the head of loss of dependency. 4. The deceased was aged 37 years. He was in settled and stable employment. His monthly income at the time of his death was Rs.11,285/-. A family of 6 persons including the deceased were depending on the said income of the deceased. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, reckoned only ¼ as the personal expenses of the deceased. We find that this debit on the ground of personal expenses of the deceased is perfectly M.A.C.A No.1272 of 2011 3 justified by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] There is nothing to indicate that any income tax liability will be attracted considering the present income of the deceased. 5. Towards future prospects, the Tribunal added 50% and the same also does appear to us to be absolutely justified by the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra). 15 has been reckoned as the multiplier, which again is in tandem with the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra). We do not, in these circumstances, find that the Tribunal had committed any error in working out the quantum of compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the insurance company however contends that the multiplicand is higher and therefore the multiplier must have been reduced by the Tribunal. This argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the contention that the amount of Rs.22,85,280/- @ 8% per annum would fetch more than Rs.12,696/-, which has been reckoned as the multiplicand finally by the Tribunal. We are unable to accept this argument. It is true that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 8% per annum. That is only to ensure that amount is paid at the earliest as per the impugned award. If we reckon the return by way of M.A.C.A No.1272 of 2011 4 interest to be 6% per annum, that will fall below the amount of Rs.12,696/- reckoned by the Tribunal. Moreover, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is an argument against the rationale of adopting multipliers and provision for improvement in prospects which is accepted by the binding precedent in Sarla Verma (supra). We are unable to accept the contention that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency is excessive. 6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/