IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 545 of 2006(F) ---------------------- OPMV.2599/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONERS. ------------------------------------ 1. T.SATHYABHAMA AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE R.K.PILLAI. 2. SHAJI.K.PILLAI, AGED 34 YEARSL, S/O.LATE R.K.PILLAI. 3. SHEENA.K. AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.LATE R.K.PILLAI. 4. BINDHU.K.AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. LATE R.K.PILLAI. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. SUSHIL KUMAR, MARANAYIL HOUSE, EROOR P.O. THRIPPUNITHURA. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TRIPUNITHURA. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 545 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 13, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The husband of the first claimant R.kunjukrishna Pillai who was aged 65 at the time of the accident met with a motor accident near Varma Medical Clinic at Thrippunithura while riding a bicycle. He was knocked down by a motorcycle ridden by the first respondent from behind. He sustained very serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him while undergoing treatment in the hospital after seven months. Alleging negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the rider of the motorcycle, the claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.7 lakhs. 2. The 1st respondent was the owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle and the 2nd respondent was the insurer. Respondent No.1 remained absent before the Tribunal while the 2nd respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy. PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the M.A.C.A. 545 of 2006 2 date of petition till realisation and costs. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Sri Anil S. Raj, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of dependency, for the pain and sufferings endured by the deceased and for loss of consortium are inadequate. Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the award of the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1500/-. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance Rs.1000/- is taken as his monthly contribution to his family. As the deceased was aged 65 at the time of the accident, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 5 and awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the loss of dependency. According to the claimants, the deceased was conducting a Maruthi Servicing and Smoke Testing Station. Ext.A7 is the copy of the licence. Therefore we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed as Rs.2000/- which works out to Rs.24,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.16,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 5 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of M.A.C.A. 545 of 2006 3 Rs.80,000/- (18000 x 5). 5. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the deceased. The deceased died after seven months of the accident. Therefore we feel that a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 6. For the loss of consortium Rs.5000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the age of the 1st claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 7. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.35,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-