IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 625 of 2006(A) ----------------------- OPMV.1431/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS, L.RS. OF 1ST PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, VILAKKATHARA HOUSE, KADALASSERY, VALLACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR. (DIED). 2. AMMINI AMMA, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, -DO- -DO-. 3. VANAJA, W/O. VIJAYAN, -DO- -DO-. 4. GIRIJA, W/O. GOPINATH, -DO- -DO-. 5. VALSALA, S/O. SURENDRAN, -DO- -DO-. 6. PRAKASAN, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN,-DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. LEELA RAM, M/S. TAMIL NADU PACKAGING INDUSTRIES, NO.3, ANNA STREET,SINIVASA NADAR, PADI, MADRAS-50. 2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MADRAS, ANNA NAGAR, WEST HILL BRANCH NO.710901, PLOT NO.C.33, 2ND AVENUE, MADRAS-600 040. 3. M. SIVAKUMAR, S/O. MARUDAI, MOTTUR, NEW PILLAYAR KOVIL STREET, VIRUTHAMPETTI, VELLOOR. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. There were two claimants before the Tribunal. They are parents of the deceased. The 1st claimant/parent/father died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal heirs have now come on record. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their son aged 28 years – a driver by profession, in an accident which occurred on 3/4/95. Death was occurred on the same day; but after admission to the hospital. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. 2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, passed the impugned award holding that the M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2006 -: 2 :- appellants are entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,12,600/- as compensation as per the details shown below: 1. Pain and suffering - Rs.5,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection - Rs.5,000/- 3. Funeral expenses - Rs.3,000/- 4. Loss of dependency (1500 x 12 x 2 x 2/3) (assuming that he would have married after 2 years plus Rs.700/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.75,600/-) - Rs.99,600/- ------------------ Total - Rs.1,12,600/- ======== The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants raises various grounds of challenge. 4. First of all, it is contended that the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering (Rs.5,000/-) is too low. The deceased had suffered the injuries at 9.15 p.m., expired later after he was admitted to the hospital. He had suffered pain for such a long period. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.7,500/- can safely be fixed as the compensation payable under that head. M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2006 -: 3 :- 5. Both parents had suffered loss of love and affection. Only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been granted under that head. The learned counsel submits that the amount awarded is too low. We are satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that Rs.10,000/- can be awarded as compensation under that head. 6. Though an amount of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded under the head of funeral expenses, expenses for transportation, medical etc., have not been taken into consideration. The deceased died not at the spot; but had to be taken to the hospital for treatment, it is pointed out. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the award amount of Rs.6,000/- under the composite head of funeral, medical and transport expenses will be fair and reasonable. No amount was awarded under the head loss of estate. We are satisfied that in the circumstances of the case an amount of Rs.2,500/- can be awarded as compensation under that head. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants then contends that the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of dependency is too low. First of all, the learned counsel contends that the Tribunal had reckoned the multiplier at 11 assuming that the parents of the deceased were of the age group 50 to 55 years. Though there is no specific statement/assertion of the age of the claimants in the petition, we have broad M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2006 -: 4 :- indications to suggest that the father of the deceased – the 1st claimant, was aged about 53 years. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, should not have reckoned the multiplier at 11; it must, at least, have been reckoned at 13, contends the learned counsel. We are unable to accept this contention as there is no specific assertion about the age of the claimants and going by the documents available, at least, one of the claimants - the father, has described himself to be aged 53 years on the date of the accident as can be ascertained from an affidavit dated 30/8/95 available in the file. The deceased was a driver as evidenced by the driving licence produced. We find merit in the contention that the multiplicand reckoned at Rs.1,500/- is too low. The accident had occurred in 1995. Even in 1994, the 2nd Schedule to the M.V. Act has permitted the courts to draw a presumption of prudence that even a non-earning person can be assumed to earn Rs.1,250/- per mensem. We have evidence to show that the deceased was at least 28 years and was earning. He was a skilled worker – driver, as indicted by the driving licence produced. In these circumstances, we accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that Rs.2,000/- can be reckoned as the multiplicand i.e,, the monthly earnings of the deceased at the time of his death. We accept M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2006 -: 5 :- that the deceased would have continued as a bachelor for a period of 2 years and for the remaining period of 9 years, the contribution to the parents would have reduced. Even then, we are satisfied that the contribution at the post marriage period can be reckoned at Rs.1,000/- and the contribution during the period till marriage can be reckoned to be 2/3rd of the earnings of the deceased. In this view of the matter, the appellant will be entitled for a total amount of compensation for loss of dependency. 8. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amounts already directed to be paid: 1. Pain and suffering (Rs.7,500/- minus Rs.5,000/-) - Rs.2,500/- 2. Loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000/- minus Rs.5,000/-) - Rs.5,000/- 3. Funeral, medical and transportation expenses (Rs.6,000/- minus Rs.3,000/-) - Rs.3,000/- 4. Loss of estate (no amount awarded) - Rs.2,500/- 5. Loss of dependency ((i) 2000 x 12 x 2/3 x 2 = Rs.32,000/-) ((ii) 1000 x 12 x 9 = Rs.1,08,000/-) (Total - Rs.1,40,000/- minus Rs.99,600/-) - Rs.40,400/- ---------------- Total - Rs.53,400/- ======= M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2006 -: 6 :- 9. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition to the date of payment. 10. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2006 -: 7 :-