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 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 271 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.803/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... : APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS 1, 2, 4 and 5 ----------------------------------- 1. R.VIDYA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.HARI,"SREE RAMAS' N.H.ROAD, KAZHAKKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BABY SARAN KRISHNAN, AGED 6 YEARS(MINOR) S/O.HARI, " SREE RAMAS", N.H.ROAD, KAZHAKKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.SAVITHRI, AGED 67 YEARS, 40, KOTARATHU MADAM, MONKOMPU P.O., ALLEPPEY. 4. A.RUGMINI AMMAL, AGED 77 YEARS, 40, KOTTARATHU MADAM, MONKOMPU P.O., ALLEPPEY. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RUPILA SAHINI, C/O.M/S.MANAK ROAD LINES, 2727, HAMILTAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. (OWNER). 2. MAKKAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O.KARNAYIL SINGH, SALOM VILLAGE, GUNGA TALUK, NAVASHASHAR DISTRICT, PUNJAB STATE. (DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.HR-26/9366). 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPNAY, 4/704, G.T.ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 032. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.271 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: FEBRUARY 11, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The challenge in this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants is to the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in OP(MV) 803/1998 dated May 5, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.4,77,000/- for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the death of deceased Hari in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these: The claimants are the wife, minor son and parents of deceased Hari. On January 16, 1998 at about 6.35 a.m. while deceased Hari was travelling in the KSRTC Super Fast Bus bearing registration No.TA 751 from Trivandrum to Kodungalloor and when reached near Karottu Junction in Karunagappally on the National Highway, a lorry bearing registration No.HR/26/9366 coming from the opposite direction which was driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, collided head on with the bus in which the deceased was travelling. He died on the spot itself. As the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent as the owner, 2nd respondent as the driver and 3rd respondent as the insurer of the offending bus are jointly M.A.C.A.271 of 2005 2 and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants who are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased Hari. Deceased Hari was aged 32 at the time of the accident and was employed as Area Manager in a company earning Rs.5,510/- per month. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement admitting the accident. They further contended that the 2nd respondent has no valid driving licence to drive a lorry. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the KSRTC Bus by its driver. 4. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the contesting respondents, Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. Ext.X1 was also marked. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,77,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have come up in appeal. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by the 2nd respondent is also not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. M.A.C.A.271 of 2005 3 6. In the case of the death of an individual in a motor accident, compensation has to be assessed applying the multiplier method. The principles for assessing compensation adopting multiplier method in the case of fatal accident is prescribed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. First, the income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal living expenses. The balance is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family which constitutes the multiplicand. Then having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. In fixing the multiplier, regard should be made to several imponderables in life and economic factors. The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier is the loss of dependency to the family. Thereafter a conventional amount should be awarded for loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body, cost of medical treatment of the deceased etc. 7. Deceased Hari was employed as an Area Manager of Kynetic Finance Ltd. and was drawing a salary of Rs.5,510/- per month. M.A.C.A.271 of 2005 4 Ext.A12 is the salary certificate. PW.3, an officer of that comnpany, as well as PW.4, another officer of that company, were examined to prove Ext.A12. The Tribunal did not accept Ext.A12 as the person who issued the same was not examined. But, in our view, Pws.3 and 4 are perfectly competent to prove Extr.A12 since they are the officers of that company. That being so, the monthly income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.5,510/- accepting Ext.A12. Out of this 1/3rd can be deducted for his personal expenses in the light of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma ' s case (supra). That being so, his monthly contribution to the family would be Rs.3,670/-. The Tribunal has taken his monthly income as Rs.3,000/- which appears to be not correct. Taking his monthly contribution as Rs.3,670/-, his annual contribution to the family works out to Rs.44,040/-. 8. The next question is what is the proper multiplier that can be adopted in this case. Deceased Hari was aged 32 and the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 17 which is not seriously disputed. Thus calculated, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,48,680/- (3670 x 12 x 17). The claimants are entitled to the said amount towards loss of dependency. Therefore on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,40,650/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into M.A.C.A.271 of 2005 5 consideration the fact that the 1st appellant/petitioner, wife of the deceased, was aged only 22 years and the 2nd appellant, the son, was aged only 4 months, we feel that compensation of Rs.30,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of love and affection. Thus, on this count the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 9. For the loss of amenities/enjoyment of life Rs.25,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Taking into account the young age of the deceased, we feel that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. 10. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,75,650/-. They are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, shall deposit the amount within one month from this date before the Tribunal with notice to the claimants. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE M.A.C.A.271 of 2005 6 mt/-