IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 356 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.2000/1997 of PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. T.P.AYYAPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.RAMU, THEKKEPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. 2. M.SOUDHAMINI, W/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS, THEKKEPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ABOOBACKER, S/O.AMMED, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE,VATTOLI BAZAR, P.O.BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. 2. M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, KINGSWAY BUILDING, MAVOOR ROAD JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE. ADVS. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.S.K.SAJU FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.356 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimants are the parents of a deceased woman aged 26 years. She was allegedly employed as a dress designer and was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. The marriage of the deceased was admittedly fixed and the death in the motor accident took place prior to her date of marriage. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The Tribunal awarded only a total amount of Rs.1,32,500/- as compensation. The appellants/claimants lament that the amount awarded is meagre and insufficient. Called upon to explain the specific nature of the challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred grossly in reckoning the monthly income at Rs.1,250/-. In 1994, the Motor Vehicles Act was amended to permit drawal of an inference that even a non earning person would be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum and the Tribunal should have reckoned a higher amount of monthly income, contends counsel. 2. In the total absence of any better inputs to ascertain the M.A.C.A. NO.356/2006 2 employment and income of the deceased, we are satisfied that the amount reckoned by the Tribunal as annual earning, that is, Rs.15,000/- does not warrant any interference at all. 3. Counsel contends that adoption of 11 as multiplier is not justified. The Tribunal accepted the said multiplier taking into account the age of the claimants and the age of the deceased. While computing loss of dependency, it is the claimants age which will have to be taken into consideration, contends counsel. We are unable to agree. The Tribunal did not commit any error in adopting 11 as the multiplier notwithstanding the fact that the age of the deceased would have justified acceptance of a higher multiplier. It is the lower multiplier applicable to the older of the two - claimant or dependent that will have to be reckoned to be relevant in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to ascertain the precise loss of dependency. 4. The death occurred on the date of the accident. The amount of compensation awarded for pain and suffering is Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that compensation for pain and suffering awarded is not justified and that a higher amount of compensation should have been awarded under that head. M.A.C.A. NO.356/2006 3 5. We have taken into account the nature of the injuries. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants and we are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.10,000/- can be safely reckoned as compensation for pain and suffering. Counsel further contends that interest has been awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition and that a higher rate of interest, at least at the rate of 7.5% per annum should have been granted. We agree with the learned counsel that interest can be granted at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 6. This appeal is, in the circumstances, allowed in part. The appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded and interest shall be payable on the entire amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.356/2006 4 R. BASANT & & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.356/2006 JUDGMENT 16th February, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.356/2006 5