IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 971 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.2628/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. T.K.GOPALAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.T.U.KUNJAPPAN, `NIRANCHANA', TENGUMPPILLY HOUSE, OORAKKODE, P.O.KUNDUKKADU, THRISSUR, (FATHER OF DECEASED GEETHIKA). 2. M.M.AMBIKA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.T.K.GOPALAN, `NIRANCHANA', TENGUMPPILLY HOUSE, OORAKKODE, P.O.KUNDUKKADU, THRISSUR, (MOTHER OF DECEASED GEETHIKA). BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.M.MUTHU, S/O.MOIDUNNY, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, VIRUPAKKA, VAZHANI, THRISSUR. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLLANNUR DEVASSY SMARAK BUILDING, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R1 SMT.P.G.BABITHA FOR R1 SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 971 of 2006-B ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The appellants are the claimants. They are spouses aged 54 years and 43 years respectively. They claimed compensation for loss suffered by them on account of the death of their minor daughter who died in a road traffic accident which took place on 27/1/2003. Against a total claim of `2,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of `1,66,500/- as per the details shown below: Sl.No. Heads Amount Awarded Part-I 1 Transport to Hospital and taking of dead body to house Rs. 1,000/- 2 Damage to clothing and articles 500/- 3 Funeral expenses 5,000/- Part-II 1 Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 2 Shortened expectancy of life Nil 3 Loss of love and affection 25,000/- 4 Loss of Dependency 1,00,000/- 5 Loss of estate 20,000/- Total 1,66,500/- 2. The challenge is only on the quantum of the amount M.A.C.A. No. 971 of 2006 -: 2 :- awarded. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, at least, the amount that would have been payable under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act must have been awarded by the Tribunal. This has been so held in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Muneer (2003 (1) KLT 137). We are satisfied that, in the interests of justice, though this claim is under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, the minimum indisputable amount which is liable to be paid under Sec.163A can be ordered to be paid. The challenge must succeed only to that extent. 3. The next question to ascertain is the quantum of compensation payable. The deceased was aged below 15 years and hence horizontal entry No.1 of the table/chart in Clause-1 of the Second Schedule comes into play. 4. The deceased had not started earning and therefore in the absence of any evidence about earning, we choose to follow the presumption of prudence which is available under Clause-6 of the 2nd Schedule of the M.V. Act. `.15,000/- per annum is thus assumed to be the annual income of the deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation under the 2nd Schedule. 5. We have repeatedly held that multiplier given in Column No.2 of the 2nd Schedule is of no use at all in the ascertainment of compensation payable in the case of death. That is relevant only for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of compensation M.A.C.A. No. 971 of 2006 -: 3 :- payable in non-fatal disability cases coming under Clause-5 of the 2nd Schedule. We therefore have to ignore entry under Column No.2 under the head of multiplier while attempting to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable in case of death. 6. There is no particular entry for an annual income of `.15,000/-. We have already taken the view that the Schedule must be given a realistic interpretation and understanding. The horizontal entries refer to persons of different age groups. The vertical entries also, we assume, must refer to the range of income of the deceased persons. In that view of the matter, the first vertical column relating to annual income must be reckoned as pertaining to persons of the income upto `.3,000/- Similarly, the subsequent columns must also be held to refer to persons earning income upto `4,200/-, `5,400/-, `6,600/- etc., upto `40,000/- in the last column. So reckoned, the deceased in this case must fall under the group of persons earning above `12,000/- upto `18,000/- given under vertical Column No.10. This means that the amount “rupees in thousands” payable is 360 i.e., `3,60,000/-. From this, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted as expenses in the Note. This means that the compensation payable under Clause-1 of the 2nd Schedule would be `2,40,000/- (`3,60,000/- x 2/3) . In addition, an amount of `2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and `2,500/- under the head of loss M.A.C.A. No. 971 of 2006 -: 4 :- of estate shall also be payable under Clause-3. Thus the total amount payable would be : 1. Compensation for fatal accidents under Clause-1 of the Second Schedule - `2,40,000/- (`3,60,000/- x 2/3) 2. Funeral Expenses under Clause 3(i) - 2,000/- 3. Loss of estate under Clause 3(iii) - 2,500/- ------------------- Total - `. 2,44,500/- ======== 7. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) In addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is found entitled to a further amount of `78,000/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand only) (`2,44,500/- minus `1,66,500/-) . (c) The entire amount of compensation shall bear interest as directed by the Tribunal. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge