IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1969 of 2007 --------------------------------------- OPMV.1174/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KANNUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,"SHARANYA" HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------- 1. MYMOONA,W/O. LATE MOHAMMED, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHUNANGAD PO, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. NISHA,D/O. LATE MOHAMMED, DO..DO... 3. NOUSHIA,D/O. LATE MOHAMMED, DO..DO.. 4. NAJMA,D/O. LATE MOHAMMED, DO...DO..... ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1 TO 4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1969 OF 2007 D --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the Insurance Company and the third respondent in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by respondents 1 to 4. They are the wife and three daughters of a person who died as a result of the injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 27.10.2004. The deceased was aged 52. He was working as Account Assistant. The tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,31,640/= with cost of Rs.5,000/=. The break up is as follows: “Loss of dependency Rs.7,61,640/= Loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/= Loss of love and affection and all other non-pecuniary loss.. Rs. 30,000/= For transportation Expenses Rs. 5,000/= For funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/= -------------------- Total: Rs.8,31,640/= ============ MACA.1969/07D 2 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant would essentially raise four points before us. In the first place, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the tribunal erred in computing loss of dependency and arriving at a sum of Rs.7,61,640/=. In arriving at the said amount, what the tribunal has done is that it has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.8,656/= which includes his increment. Thereafter, taking 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the income was taken at Rs.5,770/=. The multiplier of 11 was adopted and thus Rs.7,61,640/= was arrived at. He would contend that the tribunal should not have taken the income at Rs.8,656/=. He would further contend that having regard to the age of retirement of the deceased which was 58 years, the tribunal ought not to have taken the multiplier as 11. Thirdly, it is contended that the tribunal ought not to have granted Rs.30,000/= towards loss of consortium and lastly it is contended that the tribunal ought not to have granted MACA.1969/07D 3 Rs.30,000/= towards love and affection. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the award. 3. In the first place, we will consider the question of income as also the multiplier together. Admittedly, the deceased was to retire at the age of 58 years. The accident took place when the deceased was 52 years of age. Therefore, the deceased would be expected to earn income which he was allegedly earning only for a period of six years. The deceased being above 50 years of age, there is no scope for any addition on account of future prospects as laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (JT 2009 (6) SC 495). Therefore, we feel that the appellant is correct in contending that the multiplier should not have been adopted at 11 for arriving at the compensation for the whole period. But, we feel that the multiplier of 6 could be adopted. If the income is taken as Rs.8,470/= and the multiplier of 6 is taken on the basis that the deceased would be serving only for six years more, the amount would be Rs.6,09,840/=. But, from the same, having regard to the fact that the family of the deceased consisted of MACA.1969/07D 4 five including the deceased, 1/4th would have to be reduced and not 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. Thus, we would arrive at a sum of Rs.4,57,380/=. For the remaining period with a multiplier of five, we feel that the monthly income can be fixed at Rs.4,000/=. Here also, a deduction of 1/4th is to be reckoned. The respondents would be entitled to an amount of Rs.6,40,308/=. Thus, the amount of dependency is to be fixed at Rs.6,40,308/= as against Rs.7,61,640/=. In view of the fact that we are applying the dicta of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (JT 2009 (6) SC 495), we feel that the loss of consortium should not have been awarded at Rs.30,000/=, but it should have been limited to Rs.10,000/= and, therefore, Rs.20,000/= is to be deducted under the said score. However, as far as the compensation towards loss of love and affection and all other non-pecuniary loss, we are not inclined to make any deduction from the sum of Rs.30,000/= which is the plea which is pressed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in MACA.1969/07D 5 part and we modify the award of the tribunal by reducing a sum of Rs.1,41,000/= from Rs.8,31,640/= and the respondents are allowed to realise an amount of Rs.6,90,000/= with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation as awarded by the tribunal. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge