IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1602 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1283/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. N.K.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, SREEVALSAM, ALECHIKKODU, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA. 2. K.R.JAYASREE, D/O.N.K.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, SREEVALSAM, ALECHIKKODU, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA. 3. R.RAJASREE, D/O.N.K.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, SREEVALSAM, ALECHIKKODU, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA. 4. R.RAJEEV, S/O.N.K.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, SREEVALSAM, ALECHIKKODU, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASHIM SRI.VIMAL CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.M.JAMES MARIADOSS, NO.33 MADATHU STREET, SANTHAMARAM, SANKARAKKOIL TALUK, THIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU-627 006. 2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM-686 001.. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1602 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimants are the appellants. They are father and siblings of a deceased person, aged 34 years, who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 11/11/05. He succumbed to those injuries. The claimants staked their claim for compensation under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased, it was claimed, was employed as a Sales Executive. His monthly income, it was asserted, was `3,300/-. 2. The Tribunal considered the claim under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act and came to the conclusion that a total annual income of the deceased does not exceed `40,000/-. The claim under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act is entertainable in the light of the dictum in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., (AIR 2004 SC 2107). The Tribunal accepted the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal also ascertained the age of the deceased from Ext.A7 SSLC book of the deceased. That clearly shows that the age of the deceased as on the date of death was 34 years. He therefore belongs to the group of persons of M.A.C.A. No.1602 of 2011 -: 2 :- the age group 30 to 35 years. 3. The Tribunal thereupon proceeded to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable. The Tribunal rightly found that under Clauses.3(i) and 3(iii) of the Second Schedule, an amount `2,000/- as funeral expenses and `2,500/- as loss of estate respectively are payable. The Tribunal then proceeded to ascertain the compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal instead of ascertaining the amount directly from the Second Schedule to the M.V. Act, attempted to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency by resort to the multiplier-multiplicand method. The Tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency at `99,000/- (3300 x 12 x ½ x 5). Evidently one half of the income was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. '5' was taken as the multiplier taking into consideration the age of the first claimant/father. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the method adopted by the Tribunal to ascertain compensation for loss of dependency is wholly incorrect. The Tribunal has not followed the mandate of Clause (1) of the Second Schedule. This aspect has been adverted to in detail in the decision in National M.A.C.A. No.1602 of 2011 -: 3 :- Insurance Co. Ltd., v. P.C. Chacko (2011 (3) KLT 693). It is now well settled that in a claim for compensation for death under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act, the Tribunals do not have to resort to the multiplier-multiplicand method independently. They have to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable as given in the table under Clause (1) of the Second Schedule. The deceased in this case aged 34 years falls under the horizontal column No.5 - of persons aged above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years. He falls under vertical column No.13 which deals with persons having the annual income above `36,000/- and upto `40,000/-. At the point where the relevant horizontal column and the vertical column meet, the amount of compensation payable is given in “Rupees in thousands” and the relevant figure where horizontal column No.5 meets vertical column No.13 meet is '680' i.e., `6,80,000/-. Following the mandate of the Note under the table, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. This would mean that the amount that would be payable under the head of 'loss of dependency' is `4,53,333/- (`6,80,000/- x 2/3). In addition to that, the amounts under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate will also be payable. 5. The question has been considered in detail in Chacko (supra) and it is now trite that the quantum of compensation M.A.C.A. No.1602 of 2011 -: 4 :- payable in the case of death cannot be ascertained by resort to the multiplier-multiplicand method independently and the amount has to be ascertained from the table given in Clause (1) directly. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of `3,54,333/- (`4,53,333/- minus `99,000/-) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that only an amount of `2,000/- has been awarded as costs. Proportionate costs is liable to be paid on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943), points out counsel. We agree. 8. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of `3,54,333/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty four thousand three hundred and thirty three only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. (d) We make it clear that proportionate cost for the M.A.C.A. No.1602 of 2011 -: 5 :- proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation shall also be payable as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). (e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No.1602 of 2011 -: 6 :-