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 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.NO. 207 OF 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.2004/1996 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS - PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. ULAHANNAN JACOB, ULLATTIL, ANC HUNUKKU, VALIA THOVALA P.O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI (DIED) 2. ALEYAMMA JACOB, DO. DO. ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS IMPLEADED: ---------------------------------------------- 3. SHAJI JACOB, S/O. LATE ULAHANNAN JACOB, ANCHUMUKKU, VALIA THOVALA P.O., KATTAPPAN, IDUKKI. 4. SABU JACOB, S/O. DO. DO. 5. SHIBU JACOB, S/O. DO. DO. DO. 6. SHEEBA JACOB, D/O. DO. DO. DO. 7. BINDU JACOB, D/O. DO. DO. DO. 8. MANJU JACOB, D/O. DO. DO. ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 3 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LRS OF DECEASED FIRST APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 15.12.2005 IN I.A. 2760 OF 2004. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI, GANDHINAGAR, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. 2. LAKSHMI, BALASUBRAMANIAN, KUMARAN KUNNATH HOUSE, NEAR TRINITY CONVENT, KOLAZHY P.O., TRICHUR. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.207of 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Thomas P. Joseph, J. This appeal arises from the award passed in O.P(MV) No.2004 of 1996 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (for short, “the Tribunal”). Claimants have come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to them consequent to the death of their son. During the pendency of the appeal, first appellant (father of the deceased) died. His legal representatives are impleaded as additional appellants 3 to 8 as per order in I.A. No.2760 of 2008. 2. Son of second appellant and brother of appellants 3 to 8 died in a motor accident on 11.7.1996. According to the appellants, deceased was employed as driver of Jeep bearing Reg. No.KL-6/9115. A lorry driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent hit that Jeep causing fatal injuries to the deceased. Second appellant and the deceased first appellant, alleging rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry claimed Rs.4,60,000/- as compensation. Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the first M.A.C.A. NO.2007 OF 2003 -: 2 :- respondent and awarded compensation of Rs.1,74,000/-. It is contended by the learned counsel that compensation awarded is low. 3. Deceased was employed as Jeep driver at the relevant time and was aged 27 years. Deceased, first appellant was aged 61 years at the time of accident. Second appellant is the mother. Counsel for third respondent contends that multiplier adopted is high. Tribunal has taken 11 as the multiplier which, considering the age of the deceased first appellant and the second appellant at the time of the accident is on the higher side. Though insurer has not filed appeal challenging the multiplier possibly taking into account the amount of compensation awarded, we are not inclined to accept the multiplier adopted. Appellate court is entitled and expected to do what the trial court was required to do in the ends of justice. Considering the age of the deceased first appellant and second appellant the proper multiplier to be adopted is '8'. 4. Tribunal held that the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.2,250/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, his monthly income for assessment of compensation was fixed as Rs.1,500/-. Observing that the deceased would have got married within 2-3 years only 1/3rd of that amount (Rs.500/-) was taken as loss M.A.C.A. NO.2007 OF 2003 -: 3 :- of dependency for the purpose of assessment of compensation. When multiplier is taken and the monthly income taken is relatively low, there is no reason to adopt such a procedure for assessment of compensation. We accept the finding of the Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.2,250/-. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, monthly contribution to the family is Rs.1,500/-. With 8 as the multiplier, compensation payable for loss of dependency and contribution comes to Rs.1,44,000/- (1500x12x8) as against Rs.66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, additional compensation payable to the appellants on that count is Rs.78,000/-. 5. It is contended by the counsel that compensation awarded on other counts are also meagre. But on going through the award and considering all relevant factors and the total amount to which appellants are found entitled, we are not persuaded to accept that contention. 6. Counsel for the third respondent contended that appellants are not entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation since appeal was filed with inordinate delay and this Court entertained the appeal after condoning that delay. 7. It is seen from the records that appeal was filed with delay M.A.C.A. NO.2007 OF 2003 -: 4 :- of one year and 99 days and as per order on C.M.Appl. No.314 of 2003 delay was condoned. Considering that and all other relevant aspects, we are of the view that interest payable on the enhanced compensation will be at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Appellants are allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.78,000/- (Rupees Seventy eight thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation from respondents 1 to 3, jointly and severally. Third respondent being the insurer is directed to deposit the said amount. On deposit second appellant is permitted to withdraw one half of the same. Rest of the amount will be shared by additional appellants 3 to 8 equally. They are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv M.A.C.A. NO.2007 OF 2003 -: 5 :-