IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 MACA.No. 905 of 2007() --------------------------------- OPMV.3631/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------- SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O. SREEDHARAN, VYAYAPPATT HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. HARIDAS P., S/O. GOPALAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, SHORNUR. 2. THE MANAGING PARTNER, MAYILVAHANAM TRAVELS, SHORNUR. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, FAIZAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.905 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . It is the case of the appellant that his son died in a motor accident due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the third respondent insurance company. Tribunal awarded Rs.1,37,600/= with interest and cost. At the time of filing application before the Tribunal the appellant was aged 60 years. As per the second schedule, for the persons aged above 60 only 5 is the apt multiplier. Tribunal has taken 8 as the multiplier and calculated compensation. Contention of the appellant is that since application was filed under section 163A, compensation should have been fixed strictly as per second schedule considering the age of the deceased which is only 31. To find out whether the appellant was the only heir of the deceased, we directed the appellant to produce legal heirship certificate of the deceased. But, the certificate produced is different. The address shown in the affidavit, in the certificate produced, in the appeal memorandum and in the application are all different. In these circumstances, we are not inclined MACA.905/2007 2 to entertain the appeal. Therefore, without going into the legal questions argued, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks