IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1472 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1017/2009 of PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. ANTONY,S/O.JOSEPH (LATE)AGED 53 YEARS, 2. VALSAMMA JOSEPH,W/O.ANTONY,AGED 50 YEARS 3. MINU ANTONY,D/O. ANTONY, AGED 23 YEARS, (ALL ARE RESIDING AT MANGALASSERI HOUSE, PO KALLURUTTY,THIRUVAMBADY (VIA),KOZHIKODE). BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.RENI RASHEED SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.C.ATHRUMAN,S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED NOT KNOWN,R/AT KIZHAKKINACHALIL HOUSE, PO KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE. 2. ANILKUMAR.M.V,S/O.VELAYUDHAN,AGED 31 YEARS,R/AT MANAKKATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PO KOODARANHI,KOZHIKODE. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., SHAFEER COMPLEX,6/975,OPP.YMCA,KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R3 SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1472 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are the parents aged 53 and 50 years and an elder sister 23 years of a 17 year old boy who suffered injuries and succumbed to such injuries in a motor cycle accident which took place on 19.09.2008. Deceased was a student. It is asserted that he was earning while he was learning and he was get income of Rs.4,000/- per mensem. Against the total claim of Rs.6 lakhs the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,01,000/- as per details as given in paragraph 12 of the impugned award which we extract below. Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount awarded 1 Transport 2000 1500 2 Damage to clothing 2000 500 3 Pain and sufferings 30000 410000 4 Funeral Expenses 5000 3000 5 Loss of Love and affection 25000 10000 6 Loss of estate Nil Nil 2 MACA No. 1472/2011 Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount awarded 7 Loss of consortium Nil Nil 8 Loss of dependency 4,50,000 1,76,000 9 Medical Expenses 6000 Nil Total 2,01,000 2. Insurance company was made entirely liable under impugned award. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is directed against the quantum of compensation. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, learned counsel raise the grievance that the Tribunal did not accept the claim of the appellant that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per mensem even when he was continuing his studies. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is therefore inadequate, contends the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the insurance company on the contrary contends that 1/4th not 1/3rd should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 4. After discussions of the bar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, at any rate the amount awarded by the 3 MACA No. 1472/2011 Tribunal falls below the quantum of compensation, that is liable to be awarded under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Relying on the decision in National Insurance Company Vs. Muneer [2003 (1) KLT 137], the Learned counsel for the appellant contends that at any rate in respect of a non earning child the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act should not fall below the amount of compensation that is payable under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. We therefore attributed to ascertain the quantum of compensation that will be payable under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Deceased was aged 17 years and he therefore falls under horizontal column No. 2 of the table under clause 1 of second schedule. (i.e., persons who are aged 15 years but not exceeding 20 years). 6. Invoking clause 6 of the second schedule, it can be assumed that the deceased was earning an annual income of Rs. 15,000/-. He therefore would fall under vertical entry No. 10 which relates to persons earning above 12,000/- upto 18,000. 4 MACA No. 1472/2011 The quantum of compensation is prescribed at the point in the table where relevant horizontal entry and vertical entry meet and the amount specified is Rs.3,42,000/-. Out of this 1/3 is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and that means only an amount of Rs.2,28,000/- shall be payable under clause 1. In addition, the amounts payable under clause 3 (i) and 3(iii) of the schedule are also liable to be paid. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that reckoned as a claim under 163 A of the M V Act the appellants would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,32,000/- as compensation shown below. 1. Compensation of fatal expenditure under clause 1 Rs.2,28,000/- (3,42,000 x 2/3) 3. Funeral expenses (under clause 3(i)) Rs.2,000/- 4. Loss of estate (under clause 3(iii)) Rs.2,500/- Total Rs.2,32,500/- 8. We are satisfied that the appellants are entitled to be awarded the said amount of Rs.2,32,500/-, i.e., Rs.31,500/- 5 MACA No. 1472/2011 (2,32,500 minus 2,01,000) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argues and we agree that the proportionate costs is liable to be awarded on the entire amount of compensation hereby awarded as held in Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu K. [2011 (3) KLT 943]. Only an amount of Rs.1,500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. In the result a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellants are found entitled for a further amount of Rs. 31,500/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We direct that interest be paid on the entire amount of compensation hereby awarded at the rate and for the period and directed by the Tribunal. No interest shall however be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of 451 days, i.e., the delay in filing the appeal. 6 MACA No. 1472/2011 d) We direct that proportionate costs be paid to the appellants in the proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation hereby awarded as per the dictum in Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu K. [[2011 (3) KLT 943]. e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT JUDGE V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE dnc