IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1543 of 2010(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1626/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. SAROJINI,W/O.LATE APPU,AGED 54 YEARS, AKKINDAN KUZHIYIL HOUSE,PADANILAM POST,KOZHIKODE. 2. A.K.PRAMOD,S/O.LATE APPU,AGED 35 YEARS, AKKINDAN KUZHIYIL HOUSE,PADANILAM POST, KOZHIKODE. 3. A.K.NISHI,D/O.LATE APPU,AGED 32 YEARS, AKKINDAN KUZHIYIL HOUSE,PADANILAM POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. NOUFAL,S/O.HUSSAIN,AGED NOT KNOWN, PUTHUKUDY VEEDU,PADANILAM POST, KOZHIKODE,PIN-673571. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,WHITE LINES BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673003. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010 ALONG WITH MACA 773 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1543 & 773 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 18, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and award dated July 19, 2009 in OP(MV)1626/2007 on the file of the Prl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The appellants in MACA 1543/2010 are the claimants while the appellant in MACA 773/2010 is the Insurance Company. The claimants are the wife and children of deceased Appu who died in a motor accident that occurred on March 12, 2007 at about 5.45 p.m. at Kunnamangalam . The accident happened while the deceased was walking along the side of the road, he was knocked down by the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KL-11-W 5900. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle, the claimants filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. 2. Respondent No.1 remained absent. Respondent No.2, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement admitting M.A.C.A. 1543 & 773 of 2010 2 the policy. 3. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.1000/-. The claimants have filed M.A.C.A. 1543 of 2010 claiming enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed M.A.C.A. 773 of 2010 contending that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. 4. Heard counsel for the claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in the OP is not challenged in these appeals. Therefore the following questions arise for consideration in these appeals: (1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? (2) whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation? M.A.C.A. 1543 & 773 of 2010 3 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,02,000/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: transportation Rs.3,000/- funeral expenses 3,000/- loss of love and affection 10,000/- loss of estate 5,000/- loss of consortium 5,000/- loss of dependency 1,76,000/- 7. The Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation awarded for the loss of dependency. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- and deducted 1/3rd for his personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 11, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,76,000/- for the loss of dependency. The deceased was aged 60 at the time of the accident and the 1st petitioner widow was aged 52 at that time. According to the claimants the deceased was a Coolie earning Rs.5000/- per month. Therefore we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.3000/- which comes to Rs.36000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.24000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 11. This is disputed by the Insurance M.A.C.A. 1543 & 773 of 2010 4 Company. The counsel for the Insurance Company contended that as the deceased was aged 60 at the time of the accident and the widow 52, the proper multiplier should be 5. We do not agree. According to the claimants the deceased was aged only 58 at the time of the accident. In any event, we feel that taking into account the age of the deceased, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. In the circumstances of the case, in our view a multiplier of 7 would be reasonable. Thus calculated, for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of only Rs.1,68,000/-. 8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs.11,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.6000/- on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 9. Thus the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,02,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within M.A.C.A. 1543 & 773 of 2010 5 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Both the appeals are disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-