IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 1193 of 2001(D) ----------------------- OPMV.1282/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS: ----------- 1. JINI DAVIS, W/O.LATE DAVIS, GOPURATHUNGAL HOUSE, CHAMPANOOR, ANGAMALY. 2. ASHWIN DAVIS MATHEW, S/O. LATE DAVIS, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AS NEXT FRIEND JINI DEVIS) 3. G.M.MATHEW, F/O.LATE DAVIS, DO. DO. 4. ELIYA MATHEW, W/O. MATHEW, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.A.JOHN, S/O. ANTHAPPAN, PULLADAN HOUSE, CHEERACHIKULAM, OLLUR, THRISSUR. 2. GOVINDA RAJ, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM DESOM. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9-1-2008, THE COURT ON 09/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & K. Hema, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A. No. 1193 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January,2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J. Appellants/claimants, legal representatives of a motor accident victim, approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8,73,000/-. The tribunal awarded only Rs.2,22,300/- and directed the 3rd respondent Insurance Company, which insured the offending vehicle during the relevant time, to deposit the amount. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in the appeal. 2. First appellant, wife of the victim, was only 28 years of age and the 2nd appellant was only one year at the time of the accident. Third and 4th appellants are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was 32 years at the time of the accident. The tribunal fixed 17 as the multiplier taking guidance on the Second Schedule. We are of the opinion that no enhancement of the multiplier is needed. 3. As far as the income of the deceased was concerned, it is contended that he was a contractor of the Kerala State Electricity Board and also a partner of family business of crushed metal and allied MFA 1193/01 2 products. Ext.A5 is the copy of an agreement executed between the Kerala State Electricity Board and the 1st appellant. On a perusal of Ext.A5 would go to show that at the time of the accident the deceased was a contractor f the KSEB. Ext.A6 is the copy of the agreement executed by the KSEB and the deceased. This document would also show that the deceased had taken a work for Rs.3,38,449/- from the KSEB. Ext. A7 is the details of payment made to 1st appellant in connection with a contract work taken by her after the death of the deceased. Ext.A8 is the copy of partnership deed which would go to show that the deceased was one of the partners in the family business of crushed metal and allied products. The name of the partnership is Martin Metalproducts. As per Ext.A8 all the partners shall be eligible for remuneration. Ext.A9 is the copy of sale deed in respect of the property where the Martin Metalproducts is situated. Ext.A10 is the copy of the intimation U/S 143(i)(a) of the Income Tax Act. As per which M/s Martin Metal products is liable to pay Rs.3,921/- as tax for the assessment year 1994-95. Ext.A11 is the copy of the R.C. as per which the deceased was having a tipper lorry. According to the MFA 1193/01 3 claimants, the monthly income of the deceased was more than Rs.7,500/-, but the tribunal fixed only Rs.1,500/-. Assessments were not produced and no data of income was produced. It has come out in evidence that he was a contractor of KSEB, he was a partner of the family business, he has his own tipper lorry and he was doing family business. Taking all these aspects, we are of the view that at least Rs.3,000/- ought to have been taken as his monthly income. 1/3rd has to be deducted for personal expenses. Hence monthly loss of dependency to the family can be fixed as Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, compensation payable will be for loss of dependency and loss of earnings will be Rs.4,08,000/-(Rs.2,000 x 12 x 13). Therefore, additional compensation payable will be Rs.2,04,000/-. It was contended that the compensation awarded under all heads are very meager. 4. The 1st appellant became widow at the young age and the amount awarded for loss of consortium and the amount awarded under all the other heads are very low. Considering the total amount granted, we are of the opinion that no enhancement is necessary. Over and MFA 1193/01 4 above the compensation decreed by the tribunal an additional amount of Rs.2,04,000/- should be deposited by the 3rd respondent insurance Company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, Rs.15,000/- each is allowed to be withdrawn by appellants 3 and 4 (parents). Out of the balance amount, 50% of the amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the 1st appellant (wife) and balance should be deposited in a Nationalized Bank in a Fixed Deposit enabling the 2nd appellant (son) to withdraw the same when he attains the age of 21. The appeal is allowed as above. J.B. Koshy, Judge. K. Hema, Judge. mn. MFA 1193/01 5