IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 2111 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.348/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,REGIONAL OFFICE SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 & RESPONDENTS 1& 2 RESPECTIVELY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RADHAMANI, W/O. LATE SURENDRAN @ MANI, MURIKKANANIKKAL HOUSE, MANALVAYAL P.O., IRULAM, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. 2. AJITH, S/O. LATE SURENDRAN @ MANI, (MINOR). 3. ANJU, D/O. LATE SURENDRAN @ MANI, (MINOR). 4. P.N. GOPALAN, F/O. LATE SURENDRAN @ MANI 5. PADMINI, W/O. GOPALAN. 6. VINEEESH M.G., S/O. GOPALAN (2 TO 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN). 7. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. SEKHARAN, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, ANGADISSERI, IRULAM AMSOM, IRULAM. 8. T.K. KUNHABDULLA, THAROLAKKANDI, P.O. IYYANKODE, NADAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R7 SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R1,4 & 6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The insurer/3rd respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The claimants had claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident which took place on 31/3/01. He succumbed to the injuries later on the same day. The claimants are the wife aged 35 years, two minor children and both parents of the deceased. They claimed an amount of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation. 2. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant/wife examined herself as P.W.1. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The deceased, it was asserted, was a business man running a provision store. He was an agriculturist too, it was contended. Exts.A5, A6 M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 -: 2 :- and A7 reveal that the deceased was running a provision store and had taken the requisite licence; had paid the requisite licence fee and was a member of the Kerala Vyapara Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi. A passbook showing the milk supplied by the deceased to a local milk production society was also produced. 3. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs.4,74,000/- as compensation as per the details given in para-7 extracted below: “Transport charges - Rs.1,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs.3,000/- Loss of estate - Rs.2,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/- Loss of consortium - Rs.10,000/- Dependency (3500 x 12 x 2/3 x 16) - Rs.4,48,000/- -------------------- Total - Rs.4,74,000/-” ======== That amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 4. The appellant/insurer claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The grievance is raised only about the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 -: 3 :- learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal had erred grossly in accepting Rs.3,500/- as the multiplicand and 16 as the multiplier. The deceased is shown to be aged 40 years. Except the oral evidence of his wife – P.W.1, there was no better evidence in support of the assertion that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.10,000/- per mensem. However, the Tribunal, though it chose not to accept the evidence of P.W.1 completely, sailed to the conclusion that the deceased must have been earning an income of Rs.3,500/- per mensem at least. The learned counsel contends that this assumption is unrealistic and not acceptable. 5. That he was a business man running a provision store is proved beyond the trace of doubt. What amount such person would have been earning is the only question. No better documents are produced. The oral evidence of P.W.1 was rightly not swallowed by the court as gospel truth. It can certainly be taken note of by a prudent mind that the deceased was having his wife aged 35 years and 2 children aged 13 years and 10 years as also his aged parents and a mentally retarded brother depending upon him. Drawing reasonable inferences of prudence, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income. We feel that the Tribunal has committed no error in accepting the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/-. M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 -: 4 :- 6. The next challenge is against the multiplier adopted. For persons aged 35 to 40 years the multiplier as per the 2nd Schedule is 16; whereas the persons of the age group of 40 to 45 years, the multiplier is 15. The Tribunal accepted it as 16. There was no specific evidence to choose whether the deceased would fall within the former of the latter group. We are not persuaded to agree that the Tribunal committed any such gross error warranting appellate interference in reckoning the multiplier as 16. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that inadequacy of specific evidence to show whether the deceased had crossed the age of 40 years cannot be reckoned as too significant in a case like the instant one. The learned counsel points out that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. For 35 years old wife, compensation for loss of consortium has been granted only at Rs.10,000/-. The interest has been awarded only at 6% though precedents galore to suggest that interest must be awarded at least at the rate of 7.5%. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the total amount of compensation awarded is eminently fair, reasonable and just and, at any rate, interference with the multiplier is not warranted at all. We are persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the claimants. M.A.C.A. No.2111 of 2005 -: 5 :- We do not find merit in the challenge raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR Nan/ (Judge)