IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 - MACA.No. 144 of 2003() ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.7.2002 IN OPMV.546/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD) .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------- 1. BADARUNEESSA , W/O. KAJA HUSSAIN (LATE), AGED 43. 2. HASSINA, D/O. LATE KAJA HUSSAIN AND W/O. SHERIFF, AGED 24, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT A.K.G.NAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. M.C.RAJAN, (DRIVER OF BUS - KLZ 3414) RESIDING AT MELECHALIYEDATHU, P.O.MAKKADA VIA.KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. KALPAKA TRANSPORT COMPANY, Y.M.C.A.ROAD, KOZHIKODE (R.C.OWNER OF BUS) 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REG.OFFICE, 87, M.G.ROAD, BOMBAY (INSURER OF BUS KLZ 3414) R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN . THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.144 of 2003 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellants are the mother and sister of a person who died as a result of injury suffered in a motor accident. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants have been partly allowed and the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,00,500/- with 9 percent interest. The appeal is directed against the quantum. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the Tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier at 15. According to him, the multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased should have been taken. The deceased was aged 22. If the age of the Ist appellant is relevant then the multiplier applied is correct. But, if the multiplier appropriate MACA 144/2003 -2- to the age of the deceased is taken then the appellants are justified. Learned counsel for the insurance company would point out that in a case where the claim is by the parents, the multiplier should be the multiplier of the parents. In this case the parent is the mother. The 2nd appellant cannot be treated as dependant. She is the sister of the deceased aged 24. The appellants also press argument on the basis that the Ist appellant is the dependant. If the Ist appellant is the dependant then it is the age of the Ist appellant which is relevant for deciding the multiplier. This is for the reason that under the multiplier theory the whole purpose is to compensate the legal l representatives/dependants for the loss of income under the head dependancy compensation. When the deceased is the child of the claimant necessarily son can be expected to live longer. But to compute the compensation applying multiplier theory we must not overlook the fact that the age of the dependant is relevant for the reason that the dependant must survive to get the benefit of the compensation. Going by the principle of life expectancy certainly one can expect the parent to pass away much earlier MACA 144/2003 -3- going by the age. In such a case the parent would not survive to receive dependancy for the longer period on the supposition that the age of the deceased is lower. In such circumstances, we find that the contention of the appellant is meritless and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS