IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 1867 of 2005(C) ----------------------- OPMV.609/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THALIPARAMBA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICCER, REGIONAL OFFICCE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1. V.P.ABUBACKER, S/O. MOIDEEN, VELLATHAN PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, SREEKANDAPURAM, PAZHAYANGADI. 2. KHADEEJA T., W/O. ABUBACKER, -DO- -DO- 3. ABDUL JABBAR T., S/O. ABUBACCKER, -DO- -DO-. 4. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O. ABUBACCKER, -DO- -DO-. 5. BASHEER T., S/O. ABUBACKER, -DO- -DO-. 6. HASHIM, S/O. ABUBACKER, -DO- -DO-. 7. SUMEEL, S/O. ABUBACKER, -DO- -DO-. 8. HARIS (MINOR), S/O. ABUBACKER, -DO- -DO-. 9. NAZEERA (MINOR), D/O. ABUBACKER, -DO- -DO-. (MINOR RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER 1ST RESPONDENT) 10. V.P.MAJEED, S/O. KALANDAN, THEKKANNARAKATH HOUSE, SREEKANDAPURAM, PAZHYANGADI. 11. MISHAB T.(MINOR), S/O. MAJEED, -DO- -DO-. 12. MRISHAD T. (MINOR), S/O. MAJEED, -DO- -DO-. (MINOR RSPDT.11 & 12 ARE REP.BY THEIR FATHER 10TH RESPDT.). (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST THE 7TH PTNR. WHO DIED AND RESPDTS 1, 2 & 4 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1867 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is at the instance of the Insurer of a vehicle which was involved in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle and accordingly directed the appellant/Insurance Company to indemnify the owner thereof and pay a sum of Rs.2,46,000/- towards compensation to the claimants with 9% interest. 2. It is contended by the leaned senior counsel who appears for the appellant that the Tribunal was not justified in adopting 18 as the multiplier since, admittedly at the time of the accident, the father of the deceased was aged 57 while his mother was 49. Further, three of the brothers and sisters of the deceased were majors, though two others were minors. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the annual income of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3rd, since he was admittedly a bachelor at the time of the accident. 3. It is seen from the award that the claimants had contended M.A.C.A. 1867 of 2005 2 that the deceased was a driver by profession earning Rs.4000/- per month. But the Tribunal has reckoned only Rs.1500/- as his notional monthly income. Deducting 1/3rd from the said monthly income, the Tribunal has taken Rs.12,000/- as his annual contribution to the family for calculating the loss of dependency. Applying 18 as the multiplier, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- under this head. 4. Towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs.5000/- apart from funeral expenses of Rs.2000/- and transport expenses of Rs.3000/-. Under the head “pain and suffering” the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- totalling to Rs.2,46,000/-. 5. Learned senior counsel takes strong exception to adoption of 18 as multiplier. According to the learned counsel, the correct multiplier would be 13, considering the age of the parents. He further points out that five of the siblings of the deceased were majors, though two of them had not attained majority. It is further contended by the learned counsel that 50% ought to have been deducted from the annual notional income as contribution from the deceased to his family. 6. Going by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the correct multiplier applicable will be 13 as contended by the learned senior counsel. But, in our view, the Tribunal was not justified in M.A.C.A. 1867 of 2005 3 reckoning the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1500/-. 7. There is also some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel that 50% of the annual income ought to have been adjusted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the annual income of the deceased can be fixed as Rs.30,000/- and 50% can be deducted therefrom towards personal expenses of the deceased. Applying the multiplier of 13, the compensation payable under the head “loss of dependency” will come to Rs.1,95,000/-. 8. But, in our view, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In our considered opinion, the compensation payable under the above head has to be Rs.25,000/- considering the number of siblings. 9. Thus, the total amount payable would come to Rs.2,40,000/-. In other words, the amount of compensation is reduced by Rs.6000/-. With the above modification in the award, the appeal is disposed of. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-