IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 844 of 2002(B) ---------------------- OPMV.1279/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS (PETITIONERS IN OP (MV)): ------------------------------------ 1. ANNIE, W/O.ADIMANAPARAMBIL CHAKKOO @ CHAKKUTTAN, ELINJIPRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM. 2. NIM JINESH CHAKKO, S/O.ADIMANAPARAMBIL CHAKKOO @ CHAKKUTTAN, ELINJIPRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM. 3. JIMJUSHA CHAKKO (MINOR, AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.ADIMANAPARAMBIL CHAKKOO @ CHAKKUTTAN, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN-MOTHER ANNIE, ELINJIPRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM. 4. KURIAN, S/O.LATE ADIMANAPARAMBIL CHACKO, ELINJIPRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM. 5. ELIA, W/O.ADIMANAPARAMBIL KURIAN, ELINJIPRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS IN O.P. (MV)): ---------------------------------------- 1. GOPALA MENON K., PALAKKATT HOUSE, KONATHUKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT (DELETED). 2. M.K.THOMAS, S/O.KUNJUVARKEY, MANJOORAN HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O. MFA.844/02 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR. 1ST RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 12.3.2008 IN I.A.NO.586/2008 IN MFA.844/2002 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.844 OF 2002 (B) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. A 38 year old young man sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident. His wife, two children and parents claimed compensation for Rs.3,00,000/-. Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the 3rd respondent Insurance company. Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation. Only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. According to the claimants, deceased was a mason. Tribunal fixed Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income even though according to the claimants, his monthly income was Rs.3,750/-. But no evidence was adduced to prove his monthly income. He was a mason by profession. He was maintaining a large family consisting of wife, children and parents. During the year MFA.844/02 2 1995, even a manual worker will get more than Rs.100/- per day and he may get 24 to 26 days work in a month, and therefore, being a mason, we fix Rs.2,400/- as the monthly income and after deducting 1/3 rd, we fix Rs.1,600/- as the monthly loss of dependency. Tribunal has taken 16 as the multiplier. Taking guidelines from the 2nd schedule, we find no reason to enhance the same. Therefore, compensation payable for loss of dependency will be Rs.1,600 x 12 x 16 = Rs.3,07,200/-. Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,92,000/- towards loss of dependency. Therefore, additional amount payable will be Rs.1,15,200/-. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (AIR 2003 SC 674), Supreme Court held that award need not be limited to the amount claimed. Wife of the deceased was only 35 years at the time of accident and for loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- was granted by the tribunal. We are of the opinion that Rs.5,000/- more can be fixed for loss of consortium. It is submitted that he died on the next day of accident. For one day he has to suffer pain and only Rs.5,000/- was granted for pain and sufferings. It is further submitted that compensation awarded for loss of love and affection to the children are inadequate. But considering the total amount MFA.844/02 3 awarded, we are not enhancing the same. Therefore, additional amount payable is Rs.1,20,200/-. The above amount should be deposited by the 3rd respondent Insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit over and above the decreed amount by the tribunal. Out of the above amount, appellants 4 and 5 are allowed to withdraw Rs.15,000/- each and 50% of the balance amount is allowed to withdraw by the 1st appellant and balance is allowed to be withdrawn by appellants 2 and 3, children of the deceased in equal proportion. Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.844 OF 2002 (B) --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 12th March, 2008