IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 43 of 2007() ------------------------------- OPMV.765/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.A.MARCOSE, MATTATHIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY, IST MILE, KUMILY. 2. JESSY, W/O.MARCOSE, MATTATHIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY, IST MILE, KUMILY. 3. JESNY, D/O.MARCOSE, MATTATHIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY, IST MILE, KUMILY. 4. JUSTINE, S/O.MARCOSE, MATTATHIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY, IST MILE, KUMILY. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.J.JOHNY, S/O.JOSEPH, SEMPLIYENKUNNATHU HOUSE, NADUTHARA, PUTHUSSERY P.O. PALAKKAD. 2. K.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O.BALASUBRAMANIAN, 550, DIAMOND COLONY, UDUMALPET ROAD, CHINNAPALAYAM P.O. POLLACHI, COIMBATORE DISTRICT. MACA.No. 43 of 2007 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., POLLACHI BRANCH, POLLACHI P.O. COIMBATORE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.43 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A 13 year old child sustained injuries in a motor accident on 26.5.2002 and succumbed to the injuries. Parents and siblings filed application for compensation claiming an amount of Rs.5,20,000/=. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the third respondent insurance company. The insurance company did not file any appeal. Only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. Total compensation awarded is only Rs.1,47,968/=. Rs.1,333/= was taken as the monthly loss of dependency and 8 was taken as the multiplier. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that second schedule should be taken as guideline for fixing the multiplier and if the age of the child is taken into account, 15 is the apt multiplier. If the age of the parents is taken into account, then also 15 is the apt multiplier because the mother was aged 42 and father was aged 45. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that 15 ought to have been taken as the multiplier. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that only because of the amount involved, they did not file an appeal and the monthly income taken was on the high side. Rs.2,000/= was taken as the monthly income. The MACA.43/2007 2 deceased was only a student. In 1993 when the second schedule was framed, Rs.15,000/= was fixed as the annual notional income of a non-earning person. Here, the accident occurred in 2002. Therefore, we are of the view that Rs.18,000/= (Rs.1,500/= per month) can be fixed as the annual notional income. If one third is deducted, loss of dependency will be Rs.12,000/= per year. If 15 is the multiplier, compensation payable will be Rs.1,80,000/= (12000 x 15). Tribunal awarded Rs.1,27,968/= for loss of dependency. Therefore, the additional compensation payable under this head will be Rs.52,032/=. Even though it is contended that compensation awarded under other heads are also very low, considering the total amount awarded, we are not enhancing the same. The above additional amount of Rs.52,032/= should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. On deposit of the amouant, appellants 1 and 2 are allowed to withdraw the same in equal proportion. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks