IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 743 of 2004() --------------------------------- OPMV.1573/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHINNAMMA, W/O.LATE DAVID, THANNIVILA VEEDU, CHERUVALLOOR, ANDOOR P.O., VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. BENSILAL, S/O.LATE DAVID, THENNIVILA VEEDU, CHERUVALLOOR, ANDOOR P.O., VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. DEEPA, D/O.LATE DAVID, THANNIVILAVEEDU, CHERUVALLOOR, ANDOOR P.O., VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVI KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. S.SURESH, S/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, SANTHABHAVAN, CHERUKUNNAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BOBBY, S/O.SETHU, BOBYVILASOM VEEDU, MANALAYAM, POREDAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ASHHAR COMPLEX, ATTINGAL. ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.743 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Thomas P. Joseph, J. The husband of first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3 died in an accident involving bus No.KRM-3681 owned by the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent on 14.11.1999 at 10.30. a.m. Appellants claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Tribunal awarded Rs.1,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation and directed the third respondent to deposit the amount. Appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and preferred this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The only point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to get any additional compensation? 4. According to appellants, deceased aged 55 years at the time of accident, was working in Saudi Arabia as a Foreman earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Appellants produced Exhibits A8 and A9, Passports of the deceased. Exhibit A12 is the copy of a M.A.C.A No.743 of 2004 -: 2 :- letter purporting to be issued from the Indian Embassy in Saudi Arabia to the alleged employer of the deceased. That copy is said to have been received by the first appellant. That document was produced to show the employment of the deceased in Saudi Arabia. But, that document did not reveal the income of the deceased. In the circumstances the Tribunal, for the purpose of assessing compensation for loss of contribution and dependency fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- and taking 8 as the multiplier, awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of contribution and dependency. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is too low. 5. It is true that the appellants have not produced relevant documents to prove the monthly income of the deceased. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that the deceased was working abroad. Considering the age of the deceased and the nature of his employment it is only reasonable to think that the deceased would have earned at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. Monthly income of the deceased is fixed accordingly. Taking Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income, the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased, annual contribution to the family M.A.C.A No.743 of 2004 -: 3 :- would be Rs.40,000/-. 6. So far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, it is in accordance with the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and considering the age of the deceased, we do not find reason to interfere with the multiplier adopted. That brings the compensation payable for loss of contribution and dependency to Rs.3,20,000/- (40,000 x 8). Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,60,000/- on that count. Hence the appellants are entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- on that count. 7. Though it is contended on behalf of the appellants that compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other counts are also low, we are not inclined to accept that contention, also taking into account the total amount found due to the appellants. Thus the additional compensation payable to the appellants is Rs.1,60,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till date of realisation. 8. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the third respondent that the Tribunal has in paragraph 141 of the award issued direction as to how the third respondent has to satisfy the award. We make it clear that we are not interfering with that M.A.C.A No.743 of 2004 -: 4 :- direction. The appeal therefore, is allowed in part. Appellants are allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh and sixty thousand only) as additional compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till date of realisation from the respondents. Third respondent is directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal within one month from today. On such deposit, appellants can withdraw the same in the proportion ordered by the Tribunal. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv