IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1441 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.946/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONER. ------------------------------------ 1. AJITHA, W/O.LATE SAJEEVAN, PARAPPILLIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU BHAGAM, KOLANI KARA, THODUPUZHA. 2. ANANTHU, S/O.LATE SAJEEVAN (MINOR). 3. MEENAKSHI, D/O. DO. (MINOR) MINORS REPRESENTED BYTHEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.1. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RENJITH KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, NADUKALATHIL HOUSE, MANAKKAD P.O. THODUPUZHA. 2. BINOJ AUGUSTINE, S/O.AUGUSTINE, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, MANAKKAD P.O. THODUPUZHA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA. 4. VASUMATHY, W/O.DAMODARAN, PARAPPILLIL HOUSE, MANAKKAD P.O. THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.JOHN KOSHY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1441 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the wife, two minor children and aged mother respectively of the deceased. They claim compensation on account of the loss suffered by them consequent to the death of the deceased in a motor accident which took place on 05/10/2003. The deceased suffered injuries and succumbed to the same three days later, on 08/10/2003. The deceased was aged 43 years on the date of the accident and he was employed as Agricultural Assistant Grade-I in Government service. They produced Ext.A8 last pay certificate which shows that after all deductions, the deceased was getting a monthly income of Rs.7,172/- per mensum. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for a total amount of rs.4,57,020/- as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A.No.1441/05 2 1. Transport to hospital Rs.3,050/- 2. Medical Bills Rs.66,970.70/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- 5. Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- 7. Loss of dependency Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 2/3 x 12 x 15) Total Rs.4,57,020/- 2. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is their grievance? The learned counsel for the appellants submits that just and reasonable compensation has not been awarded under the heads of loss of consortium to the 35 year old wife for the death of her 43 year old husband; that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of love and affection is grossly inadequate; that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering ignores the reality that the deceased had suffered pain for a period of three days after the accident before he succumbed to his injuries and that the tribunal had grossly erred in arbitrarily reducing the carry home M.A.C.A.No.1441/05 3 pay of Rs.7,172/- to Rs.3,000/- while adopting the multiplicand to compute the quantum of loss for dependency. The learned counsel for the appellants finally contends that the interest awarded at 6% per annum is grossly insufficient and relying on precedents contends that interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. 3. We are not persuaded to agree that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and pain and suffering deserve to be interfered with in appeal. But, we find merit in the substantial grievance raised that the multiplicand has been taken unfairly at Rs.3,000/- without showing any satisfactory reason. Even the carry home salary of the deceased is Rs.7,172/- and therefore, at any rate, even assuming that future prospects in employment of the 43 year old deceased need not be taken into account to neutralise the effect of accelerated capitalised payment of compensation there is no justification whatsoever in not accepting Rs.7,172/-, carry home salary as the multiplicand. We are satisfied that the said grievance is of substance and the award deserves to be interfered with on that ground. M.A.C.A.No.1441/05 4 4. We are further satisfied that award of interest @ 6% per annum is not adequate and we agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that interest must have been awarded @ 7.5% per annum. 5. It follows from the above discussions that the appellants shall be entitled to a further amount of Rs.5,00,640/- that is [(Rs.7,172/- x 12 x 2/3 x 15) minus Rs.3,60,000/-] in addition to the amounts already awarded by the tribunal. We further direct that interest shall be payable @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition on the entire amount to the claimants. 5. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.1441/05 5 M.A.C.A.No.1441/05 6 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009