IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 172 of 2011() -------------------------- OPMV.710/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 2ND FLOOR,NOOR COMPLEX,PB NO.811, MAVOOR ROAD,KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): CLIMANTS ------------------------------------------ 1. UNNIKRISHNAN,S/O.TAMU, AGED 47 YEARS,KALLADAPOYIL HOUSE, POST PARAPPANPYIL,CHEMBRA (VIA)THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE PIN-673573 2. KRISHNAJA D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 18 YEARS, -DO-DO- 3. KRINAJITH (MINOR)AGED 17 YEARS, -DO-DO- 4. JISHNU (MINOR)AGED 15 YEARS,-DO-DO- (MINORS 3 & 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN UNNIKRISHNAN FIRST RESPONDENT) 5. BALAN,S/O.UNNI,AGED 76 YERAS, AREEKANDIYIL HOUSE,KUTAMPOOR POST, PUNNASSERY(VIA NARIKUNI,KOZHIKODE PIN-673585) 6. JANAKI, W/O.BALAN,AGED 62 YEARS -DO-DO. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A.No. 172 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the third respondent Insurance Company in O.P.(MV)No.710/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated August 2, 2010 awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,11,000/- to the claimants, who are respondents 1 to 6 in this appeal, for the loss caused to them on account of the death of deceased Ajitha in a motor accident that occurred on May 7, 2008 at about 12.30 PM. 2. Claimants are the husband, children and parents of deceased Ajitha. The accident happened while the deceased was pillion riding on a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-57/A-1110 and when she reached at Estate Mukku in Unnikulam amsom, she was knocked down by a bus bearing Reg.No.KL/11/R-5375 driven by the second respondent in the O.P. Alleging negligence against the second respondent in the O.P., the claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. MACA 172/2011 2 3. Respondent No. 1 in the O.P., the owner of the offending bus, remained absent and he was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The second respondent in the O.P., the driver of the offending bus filed a written statement before the Tribunal admitting the accident, but attributed negligence to the rider of the motor cycle. The appellant, the insurer of the offending bus, filed a written statement admitting the policy but contended that the compensation claimed was excessive. 4. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent in the O.P. and awarded a compensation of 5,11,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The third respondent Insurance Company has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance MACA 172/2011 3 Company and the counsel for the claimants. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent in the O.P. is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,11,000/- . The break up of the compensation awarded is as under : Loss of dependency - Rs. 4,32,000 Loss of consortium - Rs. 8,000 Non pecuniary damage - Rs. 65,000 Transportation - Rs. 1,000 Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000 ------------------- Total -Rs. 5,11,000 ========= 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of dependency and on other heads is excessive. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased MACA 172/2011 4 as Rs.3,000/-, which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/4th for her personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.27,000/- was taken as her annual contribution to her family, adopted multiplier of 16 as she was aged 35 at the time of the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- for the loss of dependency. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Technician in Electronic Plating Works earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Taking into consideration, all these aspects, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of dependency and on other heads are reasonable and not excessive. That being so, we find that the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.