IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 630 of 2004(B) ----------------------------------- [O.P(MV).NO.175/1997 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL] .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOCHAPI, S/O.CHANDRAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, KUDIYATTUKONAM, THOTTAKKADU, KARAVARAM P.O. (FATHER OF THE DECEASED ASOKAN). 2. KOCHUPENNU, W/O.KOCHAPPI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MUDIYOTTUKONAM, THOTTEKKADU, KARAVARAM P.O. (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED ASOKAN). BY ADVS. SRI.D.SAJEEV, SMT.LIGEY ANTONY. RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LEELA, W/O.ASOKAN, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, MUDIYOTTUKOANM, KARAVARAM P.O., THOTTAKKADU. 2. SHIJU, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, JANATHA BUILDING, MANANKAKU, PERUMKULAM P.O. ATTINGAL. 3. RAHEEM, S/O.MOHAMMED ILLYAS, MINI MANZIL, NEAR POST OFFICE, PERUMKULAM P.O. ATTINGAL. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., L.M.S.COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL FOR R2 SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R2 SRI.P.S.VIJAYAN FOR R2 SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY FOR R4 SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF FOR R1 SMT.P.RESHMA KABIR FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010,ALONG WITH M.A.C.A. NO.1121/2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A.Nos. 630/2004 & 1121/2005 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in O.P.(MV) Nos. 175 of 1997 and 120 of 1998 dated December 6, 2002. 2. One Mr. Asokan died in a motor accident that occurred on March 27, 1996 at about 4.35 p.m. at Thottakadu Junction. Claimant in O.P.(MV) No.175 of 1997, who is the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1121 of 2005, is the wife of the deceased. Claimants in O.P.(MV) No.120 of 1998, who are the appellants in M.A.C.A. No.630 of 2004, are the parents of the deceased. 3. The accident happened while the deceased was about to get down from a bus bearing registration No.KL- 01/D 3805, the 2nd respondent conductor of that bus gave a double bell, as a result of which, the 1st respondent driver MACA 630/2004 & con. case 2 took the bus forward and while attempting to overtake another bus, which was stationed in front of that bus, it dashed against back side of the stationary bus and as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out and he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital on the same day. 4. Alleging negligence against respondents 1 and 2, owner-cum-driver and conductor of the bus bearing registration No.KL-01/D 3805, the bus in which the deceased travelled, the alleged wife of the deceased filed O.P.(MV) No.175 of 1997 claiming a compensation of Rs.1,24,500/-. The parents of the deceased filed O.P.(MV) No.120 of 1998, claiming a compensation of Rs.2,17,000/-. The parents of the deceased, who are the claimants in O.P. (MV) No.120 of 1997, were shown as respondents 4 and 5 in O.P.(MV) No.175 of 1997. Both these petitions were jointly tried by the Tribunal and a common award was passed. 5. The 3rd respondent insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting accident, but denied the MACA 630/2004 & con. case 3 liability and attributed negligence to the deceased. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 and X1 to X3 were marked on the side of the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.175 of 1997. On the side of respondents 4 and 5 in the said O.P. RW1 was examined. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of respondents 1 and 2 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,24,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal has also found that appellant in MACA No.1121 of 2005, who is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.175 of 1997, was the wife of the deceased at the time of the accident and found that she is entitled to 1/4th of the total compensation amount awarded and 1/4th to the father of the deceased and half of the compensation amount awarded to the mother of the deceased. 6. The alleged wife of the deceased has filed the appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding the apportionment of the compensation awarded and claiming MACA 630/2004 & con. case 4 enhancement of the compensation. Parents of the deceased also filed the appeal claiming enhancement of the compensation amount awarded. They also challenged the finding of the Tribunal regarding the status of the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.175 of 1997as the wife of the deceased. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 8. The following points arise for consideration:- 1) Whether finding of the Tribunal that the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.175 of 1997, who is the appellant in MACA No.1121 of 205, was the wife of the deceased at the time of the accident? 2) Whether the apportionment of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal can be sustained? 3) Whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation? 9. We shall first consider the question whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,24,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- MACA 630/2004 & con. case 5 Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,000/- Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000/- Loss to estate : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of dependency : Rs. 72,000/- ------------------ Rs.1,24,500/- ======== 10. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,800/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses Rs.1,200/- was taken as his monthly contribution to his family, adopted a multiplier of 5 and awarded Rs.72,000/- for the loss of dependency. According to the claimants, deceased was aged 32 at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a coolie. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that monthly income of the deceased can be fixed as Rs.2,250/-, which would come to Rs.27,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.18,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal took the multiplier of 5, which appears MACA 630/2004 & con. case 6 to be very low. Ofcourse, father and mother were aged 72 and 65 respectively, but the wife of the deceased was aged 32 at the time of the accident. Therefore, we feel that a multiplier of 12 would be reasonable in this case. Thus, for the disability caused, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- (Rs.18,000/-x 12). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 11. Regarding the finding that the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.175 of 1997 was the wife of the deceased at the time of the accident, we find no reason to come to a different conclusion, on going through the documents produced by the claimant therein. As regards the apportionment of the compensation amount, we find the same is just and reasonable. That being so, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- MACA 630/2004 & con. case 7 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending bus shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment before the Tribunal with notice to the claimants. Both the appeals are disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.