IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.NO. 638 OF 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1850/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. OMANA SAJEEVAN, W/O. LATE SAJI @ SAJEEVAN, KARIYIL HOUSE, READYMADE JUNCTION BHAGOM, KURICHI KARA, KURICHI KARA P.O., DO. VILLAGE. 2. ANJUMOL K.S. @ PRAMITHA, D/O. LATE SAJI @ SAJEEVAN (MINOR), DO. DO. 3. AJEESH K.S., S/O. LATE SAJI @ SAJEEVAN, (MINOR), DO. DO. 4. BHARGAVI, W/O. KUMARIPAPPAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASHIM RESPONDENT(S) -RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN, THAVALATHU HOUSE, KADAKKAMAN KARA, POONNOOVI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. R. BINU, LAKSHMI VILASAM, AYIKKARA KONAM, KAKKADU P.O., PUNALOOR. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PUNALOOR. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.638 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Thomas P. Joseph, J. Husband of first appellant met with a motor accident at the age of 38 on 6.6.2001. Appellants 2 and 3 are his children. Fourth appellant is his mother. He was driving an autorikshaw at the time of the accident. The Jeep driven by the first respondent hit the autorikshaw. He sustained fatal injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the first respondent, appellants claimed Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation. Tribunal found that the accident occurred as alleged by the appellants and awarded Rs.3,20,500/- as compensation. Appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and hence come up in appeal. 2. Heard counsel for appellants and contesting respondent. 3. Only point for consideration is whether appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation? 4. Perused relevant records. 5. Point: According to the appellants, deceased was the owner of the autorikshaw which he was driving at the time of the accident. M.A.C.A. No.638 of 2006 -: 2 :- They claimed that the deceased was earning at the rate of Rs.3,750/- per month. Appellants produced Exhibit A10, registration certificate of the autorikshaw but the Tribunal observed that the registration certificate stood in the name of another person and does not show that the autorikshaw was owned by the deceased. First appellant gave evidence as P.W.1. She claimed that the deceased used to earn as a mosaic worker as well, and his total income was Rs.6,000/- per month. Tribunal did not accept that claim, fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- and taking 16 as the multiplier, awarded Rs.2,56,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency and contribution. Counsel for appellants contended that monthly income fixed and consequently, amount awarded for loss of dependency and contribution are low. 6. It is true that appellants were not successful in proving that the deceased owned an autorikshaw. There is also no reliable evidence to show that the deceased was earning as a mosaic worker. At the same time, it is not disputed, and evidence also revealed that the deceased was working as an autorikshaw driver at the relevant time. He was aged only 38 years. He was maintaining a family consisting of wife, two children and mother. Considering the wages payable to professional drivers at the relevant time, it is only reasonable to hold that the deceased would have earned at least M.A.C.A. No.638 of 2006 -: 3 :- Rs.150/- per day for 24 days in a month which brought the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,600/-. Monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, monthly contribution will be Rs.2,400/-. Tribunal has rightly taken 16 as the multiplier and that brings the total compensation for loss of dependency and contribution to Rs.4,60,800/- (2400x12x16) as against Rs.2,56,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Appellants are entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.2,04,800/-. 7. Counsel for contesting respondent would contend that compensation awarded for loss of consortium (Rs.15,000/-) and loss of love and affection to appellants 2 and 3 (Rs.30,000/-) are excessive and pleaded for reduction. We have considered the argument advanced by the counsel. Deceased, we stated, was aged only 38 years at the relevant time. First appellant, still younger lost the company of her husband for life and appellants 2 and 3, lost the fatherly affection and guidance from the deceased. Tribunal has taken these aspects into consideration. We are not inclined to think that compensation awarded on those counts are exorbitant or wholly erroneous so as to call for interference in appeal. Thus, appellants are entitled to get Rs.2,04,800/- as additional compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. M.A.C.A. No.638 of 2006 -: 4 :- Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellants are allowed to realise additional compensation of Rs.2,04,800/- (Rupees Two lakhs four thousand and eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation from respondents 1 to 3, jointly and severally. Third respondent being the insurer of the vehicle is directed to deposit the same in the Tribunal. On deposit, 4th appellant is allowed to withdraw Rs.50,000/-. Rest of the amount shall be shared equally among appellants 1 to 3. Shares of appellants 2 and 3 and one half of the share of first appellant shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank, in the case of first appellant for a period of three years and in the case of appellants 2 and 3 till they attain majority. Amount awarded to the first appellant less one half is permitted to be withdrawn. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv