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 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 2359 of 2008() ----------------------------------- OP(MV)NO..222/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., METRO PALACE, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JOSE JOSEPH, MANGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTATHI, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 2. REJI THOMAS, PONGANA HOUSE, MARIDOM, KADAPLAMATTAM, PALAI 3. A.J.VARKEY, ARIMATTATHIL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM P.O., PALAI, NOW RESIDING AT ANCHUTHURUTHEL HOUSE, ARPOOKARA WEST P.O. KOTTAYAM. 3. ROSAMMA GEORGE OF DO. DO. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 2359 of 2008 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company in O.P.(MV) No.222/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam is the appellant. Claimants are the parents of deceased Jijo George who died in a motor accident. The appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 13, 2008 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,28,500/- to the claimants for the loss caused to them on account of death of deceased Jijo George in the accident. 2. The accident happened on October 24, 2004 at 3 p.m. in front of the Kummannoor Kurisupally. While deceased Jijo George was pillion riding on a motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-5L/3187, he was knocked down by a Maruthi van bearing registration KL-5H/3838, driven by respondent No.2 in the O.P. He sustained serious injuries MACA 2359/2008 2 and he died on the way to the hospital. Alleging negligence against respondent No.2 in the O.P., driver of the offending van, the claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.8 lakhs. 3. Respondent No.1 in the O.P., the owner of the offending van, remained absent and he was set ex parte by the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 in the O.P., the driver of the offending van, filed a written statement admitting the accident. Respondent No.3, insurer of the offending van, filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the vehicle, but denied the accident. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of respondent No.2 in the O.P. and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,28,500/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition realization and a cost of Rs.9,000/-. Respondent No.3 in the O.P. has come up in MACA 2359/2008 3 appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal especially compensation awarded for loss of dependency. 4. Heard the counsel for the Insurance Company and the counsel for the claimants. 5. Following points arise for consideration:- 1)Whether the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 18 for assessing compensation for loss of dependency is on the higher side ? 2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,28,500/-. Break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under:- Loss of dependency : Rs.3,24,000 Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000 Loss of estate : Rs. 2,500 ------------------ Total : Rs.3,28,500 ======= 7. The appellant Insurance Company mainly disputed the compensation awarded for loss of dependency. The deceased was aged 27 and was employed as a Cook in Fort MACA 2359/2008 4 Munnar Hotel, Munnar earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Ext.A7 is the certificate to that effect. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. After deducting ½ of the income for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.1,500/- per month was taken as his contribution to his family, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. As the deceased was aged 27, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.3,24,000/- for loss of dependency. 8. The counsel for the Insurance Company argued that as the deceased was a bachelor and as his parents were aged 58 and 49 at the time of the accident, the Tribunal should not have adopted a multiplier of 18. We find no merit in the above contention. In an application under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act compensation has to be granted as specified in Second Schedule to the Act. The Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Gurumallamma and another ((2009) 16 SCC 43) has held thus:- MACA 2359/2008 5 “9. As the Second Schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The Tribunal in a proceeding under Section 163- A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities.” 9. The deceased was aged 27 at the time of the accident. Multiplier that can be adopted in this case is 18 as seen from the Second Schedule to the Act. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision, we are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in adopting a multiplier of 18 as specified in Second Schedule of the Act. That apart the deceased was working as a Cook at Fort Munnar Hotel, Munnar earning Rs.3,200/- per month and the Tribunal has deducted half of his income towards his personal expenses. Taking into consideration that aspect, MACA 2359/2008 6 we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency and on other heads are just and reasonable and not excessive. That being so, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No. costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.