IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 147 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.1429/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. GOPALAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, KANJIRANGATTI HOUSE, KALLAMKULAM P.O., CHALAKODE, VIA.PAZHAYANNOOR. 2. PARUKUTTY, W/O.GOPALAN, -DO-, -DO-. ] 3. SARADA, D/O.GOPALAN, -DO-. 4. SATHYABHAMA, D/O.GOPALAN, -DO-. 5. DEEPA, D/O.GOPALAN, -DO-. 6. BINDU, D/O.GOPALAN, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS; --------------------------- 1. K.S.R.T.C REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.M.RAJAN, S/O.MANIKUTTY, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLANGALLUR, VADAKKUMKARA, IRINJALAKUDA. R1 BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ............................................................................... M.A.C.A. No. 147 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th November , 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The accident occurred on 11.11.2001 at about 4.50 p.m. when the scooter ridden by the deceased was knocked down by a K.S.R.T.C. bus, owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent, which came from the opposite side causing fatal injuries to the rider leading to his death and in turn the claim preferred by his legal heirs. The claim petition, as above, was tried jointly with the claim preferred by the pillion rider of the scooter as well, which was resisted on the question of quantum and negligence from the part of the respondents. 2. The evidence tendered consists of the oral testimony of M.A.C.A. No. 147 OF 2008 2 the claimant in the connected case, who was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor who issued the disability certificate was examined as P.W.2; besides the documents produced and marked as Exts. A1 to A15. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal, based on the evidence, arrived at a finding that the accident was occurred only because of negligence of the driver of the bus, which appears to be very much in conformity with the available materials on record and does not call for any interference. 3. With regard to the quantum payable, the case of claimants was that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 4500/- per month as a driver of a heavy vehicle and that he was the sole bread winner of the family, consisting of 7 members. Obviously, the claimants are the parents, sister and brother of the deceased. Observing that no legally acceptable evidence was produced from the part of the claimants to prove the age, occupation or income, the monthly income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.2500/- notionally, so as to work out the compensation towards loss of dependency. Though the deceased was aged only 24 years, the proper multiplier was fixed as '13', reckoning M.A.C.A. No. 147 OF 2008 3 the higher age factor of the dependants, particularly, the mother who was aged above 47 years. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- towards 'loss of dependency', besides awarding various amounts under other heads, such as Rs.1000/- towards 'transportation expense', Rs.1000/- towards 'damage to clothing', Rs.5000/- towards 'funeral expense', Rs.15000/- towards 'pain and suffering' Rs.10000/- towards loss of 'love and affection' and a further sum of Rs.10000/- towards 'loss of estate', thus making the total compensation as Rs.3,02,000/-, which was directed to be satisfied by the Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 19.06.2002 till the date of payment . 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and without any regard to the actual employment of the deceased who was working as a heavy vehicle driver. The learned Counsel also submits that, despite giving the number of the concerned heavy vehicle specifically ( in which he was working at the relevant time), absolutely no regard was paid to the said factual M.A.C.A. No. 147 OF 2008 4 position, though no objection was established by the contesting respondents. However, the fact remains that none of the claimants did choose to mount the box to prove the contents of the claim petition as to the occupation, income, dependency and such other vital particulars. Still, this Court finds that the appellants have got a definite case as to the specific nature of engagement of the deceased, which is not successfully controverted from the part of the respondents, who did not choose to adduce any evidence in this regard. Even though the heavy vehicle driving licence of the deceased was produced as Ext.A16, it is not seen referred to in the Appendix to the Award, though the same has been taken note of by the Tribunal in paragraph No.11 at page No.10 of the Award. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find it fit and proper that the monthly income of the deceased be fixed as Rs.3000/- so as to work out compensation payable towards the 'loss of dependency', particularly when the deceased was undisputedly maintaining a large family consisting of 7 members. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and on re- M.A.C.A. No. 147 OF 2008 5 working the figures as above, we find that a further sum of Rs. 52000/- (Rupees fifty two thousand only) is liable to be paid as the balance compensation towards 'loss of dependency'. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal on all other heads are very much adequate and do not call for any interference . 6. In the result, we direct the first respondent to deposit Rs.52,000/- (Rupees fifty two thousand only ) more with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 19.06.2002 till the date of payment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appeal is allowed as above. No cost. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk