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 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1136 of 2005(D) ------------------------ OPMV.1271/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SHAKEELA, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.MARAKKAR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KUZHIVELIPPADY, EDATHALA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE. 2. FEMINA MOL, (MINOR), AGED 10 YEARS, D/O.MARAKKAR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KUZHIVELIPPADY, EDATHALA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SHAKEELA THE IST APPELLANT. 3. SHAMEERA, (MINOR), AGED 4 YEARS, D/O.MARAKKAR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KUZHIVELIPPADY, EDATHALA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SHAKEELA THE IST APPELLANT. 4. IBRAHIM, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.MARAKKAR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, EDATHALA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JYOTHISH J KALLINGAL Kss ..2/- ..2.. M.A.C.A.NO.1136/2005 RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. E.P.VARKEY, S/O.POULOSE, EDAKKALATHOOR HOUSE, PARAPPUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. BAIJU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, THEKKAN HOUSE, KOTTAMAM. 3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VADAKKANCHERRY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, POLICY NO. 3176030252499. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R3 SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. Koshy & Thomas P. Joseph, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1136 of 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. A 32 year old young man sustained fatal injuries in an accident on 2.6.2000. His wife aged 27 and two minor daughters and minor son applied for compensation claiming Rupees Ten lakhs. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the third respondent insurance company, but, total compensation awarded was only Rs.5,65,348/-. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. The deceased was aged 32 at the time of accident. Taking guidance from the second schedule, 17 was taken as the multiplier. Even though it is argued that due to increase in the interest rates and increase in the life expectancy of an average citizen, a higher multiplier should be taken, we are of the view that no enhancement is necessary in the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal. According to the claimants, monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,600/-. The Tribunal took only Rs.3,618/- as the monthly income. He was a qualified Fitter engaged by a registered contractor of Cochin Refineries Limited. Ext.A7 is the register of wages-cum-muster roll for the period 1.4.2000 to 30.4.2000. There, the monthly income is shown as Rs.5,603/-. Ext.A8 is the muster roll of the subsequent period with effect from M.A.C.A.No. 1136/2005 2 1.5.2000 to 31.5.2000. That shows that he received only Rs.3,618/- as the monthly income during the just previous month of the accident. It is contended that in the previous month, he received a lesser sum because of his absence. But, his average monthly income is more than Rs.5,000/- and the Tribunal went wrong in taking a reduced income. It is also submitted that being a qualified person, better prospects in life also would have been there, but, no amount was granted for future prospects. Considering the wages in Exts.A7 and A8, we are of the opinion that at least Rs.4,000/- ought to have been taken as the monthly income. If Rs.4,000/- is taken as the monthly income, Rs.48,000/- will the annual income. After deducting one-third for personal expenses, yearly loss of dependency will be Rs.32,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 17, compensation for loss of dependency will be Rs.5,44,000/-. The Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.4,92,048/- rounded to Rs.4,92,048 and balance payable will be Rs.51,952/- rounded to Rs.52,000/-. It is argued that compensation awarded for loss of consortium was very meagre. Only Rs.15,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium for three minor children and only Rs.20,000/- was awarded for loss of love and affection which is very meagre. But, considering the total amount awarded, we are not enhancing the amount granted under other heads. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.52,000/- over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. The above amount of Rs.52,000/- should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% M.A.C.A.No. 1136/2005 3 interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the above amount, one-third of the amount is allowed to withdrawn by the first appellant and balance should be deposited in a nationalised bank enabling the second and third appellants daughters to withdraw the same in equal proportion at the age of 21 or at the time of their marriage whichever is earlier. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa M.A.C.A.No. 1136/2005 4 J.B. KOSHY AND THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ. ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1136/2005 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:20th August, 2008