IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 2805 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1855/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS IN OP(MV) --------------------------------- 1. SULOCHANA, W/O.RAJAPPAN, AGED 43, AND MOTHER OF LATE SIBI, MOZHIKKATTU HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RAJAPPAN, S/O. AGED 55, FATHER OF LATE SIBI, MOZHIKKATTU HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN OP(MV) ----------------------------------- 1. A 2 Z SANITARY WARES, P.T.USHA ROAD, KOCHI-11, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 2. E.S.JUSTIN, AGED 44, S/O.SOLOMON, ERRESSERIL HOUSE, SOBHA ROAD, VENNALA KARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KOCHI - 28. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CUSTOMER CARE BRANCH, CHITTOOR ROAD, SOUTH JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM. 4. SIVAPRASAD, S/O.RAJAPPAN, MOZHIKKATTU HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE AT ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 11, POLICY ISSUED FROM UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R1,2 SMT.K.L.SREEDEVI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2805 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are the parents of the deceased, a young person who was aged about 32 years on the date of his death. Claimants are aged 43 years and 55 years respectively. The deceased was a bachelor on the date of death. He was a coolie allegedly earning an income of Rs.140/- per day. The Tribunal reckoned the monthly income at Rs.3,200/-. The Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.3,11,160/- as per the details given below: 1. Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/- 2. Love and affection(2xRs.5,000/-) : Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of estate : Rs.5,000/- 4. Funeral and transportation expenses : Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of dependency(Rs.3200 x 2/3 x 12 x 11) : Rs.2,81,160/- ---------------- Total : Rs.3,11,160/- ======== 2. The learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award under the head of loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the monthly M.A.C.A.NO.2805/09 -2- income reckoned is not fair and reasonable. The learned counsel further submits that the multiplier reckoned by the Tribunal at 11 is not correct and proper. The deceased was earning a daily income of Rs.140/- per day, it is contended. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the multiplier applicable to the deceased, a person aged 32 years, is 16 as per the dictum in Sarla Varma v. DTC (2009(6) SCC 121). At least that should have been applied. Monthly income reckoned at Rs.3,200/- and the contribution reckoned at 1/3rd of the same at Rs.2,130/- is also incorrect, argues the learned counsel. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants in detail. We will assume that the statement of income by the claimants at the rate of Rs.140/- per day is correct. We will further assume that the deceased would have secured employment for 25 days in a month. Multiplier applicable to the deceased as per the dictum in Sarla(supra) is 16. But it is trite that in computation of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act when the dependents are higher in age, the lesser multiplier applicable to them must be taken into reckoning. It is only such lower multiplier that can reasonably and justly be taken into account. The claimants were aged 43 years and 55 M.A.C.A.NO.2805/09 -3- years as per the description in the cause title. But, the Court going by the evidence tendered by PW1 had come to the conclusion that the younger of them was aged between 50 and 55 years and that is how 11 was reckoned as the multiplier. We find absolutely nothing wrong in the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. Even if it were to be assumed that 13 is the multiplier applicable to the situation, we are satisfied that the impugned award directing payment of compensation for loss of dependency at Rs.2,81,160/- cannot be faulted; inasmuch as going by the calculation claimed applying the dictum in Sarla(supra),the claimants would be entitled only to an amount of Rs.2,73,000/- (Rs.140 x 25 x 12 x 1/2 x13). In any view of the matter we find no justification for interference with the impugned award invoking our appellate jurisdiction. 4. This appeal is in these circumstances dismissed in limine. R.BASANT, JUDGE. dsn/ M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.