IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 400 of 2005() ---------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20/02/2004 IN OPMV.1058/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM) .................... APPELLANT / 2ND RESPONDENT : -------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KALAMASSERY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS 1 & 2: ------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR.P.P., PARAMBEEZHATHU HOUSE, CHEMMANATHU KARA P.O., VAIKOM. 2. SAROJINIAMMA, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY FOR R1 & R2 SRI.T.A.RAJAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO.400/2005 ORDER ON I.A.NO.761/2005 IN MACA NO.400/2005 DISMISSED. SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) 27/08/2008 SD/- (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.400 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the amount of compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased, who died in an accident at the age of 20. 2. We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the claimants. 3. We agree with the argument of the appellant's counsel that multiplier was wrongly applied by the MACT by taking into account the age of the deceased and not considering the age of the parents. The mother of the deceased was stated to be only 51 years of age and the multiplier is '11' as against '16' applied by the MACT based on the age of the deceased. However, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the income adopted is the amount provided in the second schedule, i.e. Rs.15,000/- per year, for an unemployed youth. This amount was fixed several years back and therefore, it serves only as a guideline. Going by the level of income even for daily wage earners, we feel, Rs.15,000/- per year is very low. Even if the income is fixed at MACA No.400/2005 -2- Rs.2,100/- per month, after providing for personal expenses the deceased should have been having a net income of Rs.1,400/-. Even if the multiplier is corrected by us, we do not think there will be reduction in the compensation amount awarded for loss of dependency because net income for working out loss of dependency should be taken as a minimum of Rs. 1,400/- per month. Considering the fact that the total compensation awarded is below Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of a 20 years old son of the respondents, we find no ground to interfere with the amount of compensation fixed by the MACT. Even though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award is not consistent with structured formula on other matters also, for the reason stated above, i.e. reasonable amount of compensation is only awarded, we do not find any ground to interfere with the award and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) jg