IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 561 of 2006 ------------------------------- OPMV.1482/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. SOBHANA REGHUNATH, W/O. LATE REGHUNATH AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTHANGASSERY HOUSE MANIMARUTHUMCHAL BHAGAM, NERIYAMANGALAMKARA, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. SUMEEKO REGHUNATHAN, D/O. LATE REGHUNATH, AGED 13 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER GUARDIAN, RESIDING AT MUTHANGASSERY HOUSE, MANIMARUTHUMCHALBHAGOM, NERIYAMANGALAMKARA, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 3. LEELA, W/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTHANGASSERY HOUSE MANIMARUTHUMCHALBHAGAM, NERIYAMANGALAMKARA, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS SRI.MURALI MANOHAR.R RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. C.S. ABDULKARIM, S/O. SAID, RESIDING AT CHEMPANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NERIYAMANGALAM KARA, NERIYAMANGALAM POST, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. MACA.NO.561/2006G 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 561 OF 2006 G --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. Appellants are the claimants in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,45,000/= under various heads. This Appeal is filed, feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the second respondent Insurance Company. Though the matter is coming up for admission, by consent of both parties, we disposal of the Appeal itself. 3. The insurance coverage is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. The first appellant is the widow of late Reghunath who died on 9.9.2001 consequent to a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 31.8.2001. The second appellant is the minor daughter of the MACA.NO.561/06 G 2 deceased and the third appellant is the mother of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would essentially impugn the compensation awarded on the following grounds: It is contended that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.8,000/= per month as a freelance photographer. In support of the said contention, there was evidence in the form of oral evidence of Pws.1 & 2. There was no reason to limit the income at Rs.2,500/= from which of course 1/3rd stands deducted towards expense for maintenance of the deceased. The annual dependency is arrived at Rs.20,000/= by the tribunal. This is illegal, it is complained. It is also pointed out that the deceased was in hospital for five days, but he suffered head injuries and towards pain and suffering, only Rs.10,000/= was granted. It is also pointed out that only Rs.15,000/= was granted towards loss of love and affection. So also, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the amount of Rs.15,000/= awarded towards loss of consortium, is meagre. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company would support the Award. MACA.NO.561/06 G 3 He would submit that a total sum of Rs.4,45,000/= has been awarded. He would also submit that the evidence relied on by the appellants would not show that the deceased was in receipt of the sum which was claimed. He would also point out that actually the multiplier should have been sixteen, as the age of the deceased was thirtysix. 5. The vocation of the deceased was freelance photography. The appellants had adduced evidence in the form of Pws.1 and 2. They were employees in a Newspaper with whom apparently the deceased was attached. We would think that in the circumstances of this case, we can safely take Rs.3,000/= per month as the income. After providing for personal expenses, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.2,000/= as monthly dependency. Thus, they will be entitled to Rs.24,000/= as annual dependency on the basis of the multiplier. But, we feel that we cannot also overlook the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that even if 35 was taken as the age of the deceased, the MACA.NO.561/06 G 4 appropriate multiplier would be sixteen. Therefore, the Appeal is allowed in part and the appellants are allowed to recover an additional sum of Rs.68,000/= with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the second respondent. The compensation should be shared in the same ratio as is ordered by the tribunal. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge