IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1776 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1898/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. REMANAN,F/O.LATE RATHEESH, THAZHATHIL VEEDU,THATTARKONAM,KOLLAM. 2. SUDHEESHINI,M/O.RATHEESH, THAZHATHIL VEEDU,THATTARKONAM,KOLLAM. 3. RAJANI,D/O.SUDHEESHINI, THAZHATHIL VEEDU,THATTARKONAM,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------- THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1776 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Claimants are the appellants. They are the parents aged 50 years and 43 years and the sister aged 25 years of the deceased persons who was aged 23 years on the date of the accident. He was a mason by avocation. He suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 30.6.2007. He underwent treatment for some time and succumbed to the injuries ultimately on 5.7.2007. The claimants staked the claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Against a total claim of Rs.4 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,12,900/- as per the details given in paragraph 8 of the impugned award which we extract below:- Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000.00 2. Medical expenses Rs. 48,847.00 3. Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000.00 4. Compensation for continuing for permanent disability (3000 x 12 x ½ x 13) Rs.2,34,000.00 5. loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL Rs.3,12,847.00 Rounded as Rs.3,12,900.00 ===================================== The insurance company is made entirely liable under the impugned M.A.C.A.No.1776 of 2011 2 award to satisfy the award. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is raised against the impugned award only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all points out that no compensation has been awarded under the head loss of estate. We are satisfied that a conventional global amount of Rs.7,500/- can be awarded under that head. 4. It is next contended that the monthly earnings of the deceased was reckoned only at Rs.3000/- and the same is not adequate. The deceased was a young man about 23 years. Due provision must have been made for improvement of prospects in employment. It is further pointed out that considering the age of the mother, i.e., 43 years, 14 and not 13 must have been taken as the multiplier following the dictum in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 (6) SCC 121). We accept that contention. 5. It is further contended that monthly income reckoned M.A.C.A.No.1776 of 2011 3 by the Tribunal is too low. In 2007, a mason in Kerala could have earned a much higher amount, it is stated. Due provision for enhancement of wages must have been made, argued counsel. We are satisfied that in the circumstances, Rs.3,250/- can be safely fixed as the multiplicand to ascertain the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency. No other contentions are raised. 5. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further sum of Rs.46,500/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal as shown below:- 1. Loss of estate (No amount awarded by the Tribunal) Rs. 7,500.00 2. Compensation for loss of dependency (3250 x 12 x ½ x14 =2,73,000 minus 2,34,000) Rs.39,000.00 TOTAL Rs.46,500.00 6. In the result:- a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount M.A.C.A.No.1776 of 2011 4 of Rs.46,500/- (Rupees fortysix thousand five hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. d) The proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be payable on the entire of amount of compensation calculated as per the dictum in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj. R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- C.M.Appln. No.2665 of 2011 in M.A.C.A.No.1776 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed to condone the delay of 346 days in filing the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.