IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 2270 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.300/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. T.A.MOHAMMED ALI BASHEER, S/O.T.AHAMMAD, RESIDING AT UHAID MANZIL, PALLIKKAL IN THALANGARA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. SAFIYA, W/O.T.A.MOHAMMED ALI BASHEER, RESIDING AT UHAID MANZIL, PALLIKKAL IN THALANGARA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED FOR R1-2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` M.A.C.A. No. 2270 OF 2007 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in a petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents herein are the parents of one Luquman who succumbed to the injuries which are suffered in a motor accident which took place on 29.12.2003. The appeal is directed against the quantum fixed. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri.George Cherian as also Sri. P.K.Muhammed appearing on behalf of the respondents. Only two complaints are pressed before us. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the annual dependency arrived at in this case is Rs.9,36,000/-. He would contend that the multiplier adopted for arriving at the same is 13. This is unsustainable, he contends. Having regard to the fact that the father was aged 56 and mother was aged 48, in respect of a person aged 56 the multiplier would be 8 while the multiplier in respect of a person aged 48 would be 13. In such circumstances, MACA.2270/07 : 2 : he points out that as held by the apex court in Gyanchand Jain and another Vs. Parmanand and others [2003 ACJ 2152], the average of the multiplier should have been 11. The deceased was working in Gulf. He was aged 27. It is submitted that there was no guarantee that the employment would continue. The claimants were the parents and the deceased would have married and thereby the amount of Rs.6,000/- as monthly contribution to the parents is excessive and after marriage, it is likely that the deceased would not have contributed Rs.6,000/-, it is submitted. 3. We heard learned counsel for the respondents also. As far as the contention based on the adoption of the multiplier as 13, we notice the following facts. The deceased was admittedly aged 27. The father and mother were aged at 56 and 48 respectively. Following the decision of the apex court, the multiplier can be treated as 11. We accordingly accept the said argument and take the multiplier as 11. As far as the further argument is concerned, admittedly the income claimed was Rs.27,000/-. The Tribunal has found the income as Rs.19,500/- rounded to Rs.20,000/-. If that is so, the amount of Rs.6,000/- would be less than one third of the amount. We do not see any MACA.2270/07 : 3 : reason to interfere with this aspect of the matter. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed taking the multiplier as 11. Accordingly, the respondents would be entitled to an amount of Rs.8,21,750/- after reducing a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-. We modify the award as above. Further complaint raised is that there is a default clause that if the appellant does not deposit the amount at the rate of 7.5% within one month, the interest will run at 9%. It is submitted that the said condition is unsustainable. The interest which is awarded is 7% and in default of deposit within one month it is 9%. We would think the proper rate of interest should have been 7.5 and it is ordered as such as the direction to deposit at 9% in default cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the amount which we have allowed will bear interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of the realization. The appellant will deposit the amount as aforesaid within two months from today. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) aks