IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1013 of 2005(B) ------------------------------------- O.P.(MV).NO.348/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANTS/ CLAIMANTS: --------------------------------------- 1. C.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 52, RESIDING AT CHAMAKALAYIL HOUSE, MUTTOM KARA, DO. VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. ROSAMMA, W/O.C.J.THOMAS, AGED 47, DO. DO. 3. TINSMON, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 18, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. GANGADHARAN, S/O.UNNIKUTTY, KUNNATHODY VEEDU, KOZHAKOTTOOR AMSOM, ARIKODE VILLAGE, ERANADU TALUK. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P JOHN,SC KSRTC. FOR R2, ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.1013 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd July, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . The father, mother and brother of a 20 year old motor accident victim applied for compensation. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,84,000/= with 6% interest per annum from the date of application till realisation. Only quantum of compensation is challenged in this appeal. The major contention raised is that only Rs.15,000/= was taken as the annual income. When the second schedule was framed in 1994, the annual income of a non-earning person was fixed as Rs.15,000/=. Here, the accident occurred in 2002 and, therefore, a higher income should have been taken. We are of the opinion that the contention of the appellants is correct. A higher multiplicand should have been taken considering the fact that he was a degree student, but, no course certificate was produced before the Tribunal. We note that the Tribunal has taken 16 as the multiplier taking the age of the victim. It is settled law that when an unmarried person dies, the age of the claimants should be looked into for fixing he multiplier and the lowest of the same should be taken. Here, father was aged 49 and the apt multiplier as per the second schedule is only 13. The Tribunal has taken 16 as the multiplier. MACA.1013/2005 2 Therefore, a higher multiplier is taken, even though the multiplicand is slightly lower. Hence, no interference is warranted as the total amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable. With regard to the interest, it is the discretion of the Tribunal and an appeal will not lie only on the question of rate of interest, especially considering the bank rate of interest existing in 2004 when the award was passed. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks