IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 2305 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1106/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------- 1. MARIAMMA, S/O.LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED 60 YEARS. 2. RAJENDRAN, S/O. MARIAMMA, AGED 35 YEARS. 3. KALAVATHI, D/O. MARIAMMA, AGED 32 YEARS. 4. PARAMASIVAM, S/O. MARIAMMA, AGED 28 YEARS. 5. MANI, S/O. MARIAMMA, AGED 22 YEARS. 6. SUSEELA, AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN, MARIAMMA (1ST APPELLANT). APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT NAIYAKKATHARA, KOZHINHAMPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHILKUMAR, S/O. K.PALANIAPPAN, AGED NOT KNOWN, DINDIKKAL ROAD, MANAPARA, TRICHI. 2. A. PETER RAJ, S/O. AROGYASWAMY, AGED 34 YEARS, MADURAI ROAD, KALLATHPETTY, TRICHY DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,TRICHY, TAMILNADU. R3 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SRI.E.M.JOSEPH. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 2305 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 ORDER R.BASANT,J. Claimants are appellants. They are the widowed mother and her five children. The son of the first claimant (brother of the other claimants), a young man aged about 25 years, Murukesan by name suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 12.2.2001. He succumbed to those injuries on the same day. He was a quarry worker. He was allegedly earning an income of Rs.300/- per day. A total amount of Rs.6.5 lakh was claimed as compensation. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of a total amount of Rs.1,21,000/- as compensation as per the details given below: 1. Pain and suffering :Rs. 5,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection :Rs.15,000/- 3. Transport and funeral expenses :Rs. 5,000/- 4. Loss of dependency :Rs.96,000/- (1500 x 12 x 2/3 x 8) ---------------------- Total : Rs.1,21,000/- ========= 3. The first ground of challenge is that the Insurance company has been unjustifiably absolved from liability. We had directed the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to take M.A.C.A No. 2305 of 2007 2 instructions. It is now submitted that the policy as also the liability of the Insurance Company is not disputed by the Insurance Company. The challenge raised on that ground can hence be straight away accepted. 4. The next ground of challenge is the quantum of compensation. It is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is too low. 5. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the tribunal has erred totally in reckoning only Rs.15,00/- as the monthly income. Deceased was a 25 year old quarry worker. He had his widowed mother and also dependent siblings including a 16 year old minor sister ( the 6th petitioner). The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the principles in Latha Wadhwa and others(AIR 2001 SC 3218) and Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another (2008 ACJ 1488) that the Tribunal has totally erred in reckoning only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the monthly income safely be reckoned as Rs.3,000/-. From the monthly income 1/3rd alone need be deducted towards M.A.C.A No. 2305 of 2007 3 the personal expenses of the deceased, we are satisfied. We are making a conscious deviation from the stipulations in Sarala Verma v.Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC 1211) about the extent of reduction for personal expenses of a bachelor deceased. We take note of the circumstance that the deceased had his widowed mother and also a minor sister aged 16 years looking upto him for support and patronage. The first claimant, mother is shown to be aged 60 years. The 6th claimant minor sister is shown to be aged 16 years. We are in these circumstances satisfied that notwithstanding absence of specific evidence to show on which side of the Rubicon of 60 years, she is the first claimant can be included in the age group of persons aged 55 to 60 years and 9 can be reckoned as the multiplier. 6. It is then contended that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is too low. Only an amount of Rs.5,000 has been awarded as compensation. We are satisfied that Rs.10,000 can be awarded as compensation under that head. 7. It is contended that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection is too low considering the number of the claimants and the relation ship of the first and the M.A.C.A No. 2305 of 2007 4 6th claimant. We are satisfied an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. 8. For damage to clothing and articles no amount has been awarded. We are satisfied an amount of Rs.1,000 can be awarded as compensation under that head. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that there is an omission to award any amount under the head of loss of estate. We are satisfied that a conventional global amount of Rs.7,500 can be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of estate. Under the composite head of transportation and funeral expenses an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. We are satisfied that the said amount must be reckoned as the compensation for funeral expenses. For transportation we are satisfied that a further amount of Rs.1,500 deserves to be awarded. 10. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other way deserves or warrants interference. 11. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusions that the appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation as shown below in M.A.C.A No. 2305 of 2007 5 addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. 1. Pain and suffering :Rs.5,000/- (Rs 10,000 minus 5000) 2. Loss of love and affection :Rs.5,000/- (Rs.20000 minus 15000) 3.Damage to clothing and articles :Rs.1,000/- (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) 4. Transportation and funeral expenses :Rs. 1,500/- (6500 minus 5000) 5. Loss of estate :Rs. 7,500/- (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) 6. Loss of dependency :Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 9 = 2,16,000 minus 96,000 = 1,20,000 ) ------------------------------- Total :Rs.1,40,000/- =========== 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. Counsel argues and we agree that interest ought to have been awarded at a higher rate. We direct that interest be paid @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim to the date of payment. The learned counsel for the appellant further points out that proportionate cost as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (2011 (3) KLT 943) is to be awarded. The tribunal has already awarded a proportionate cost. Such proportionate cost must be calculated M.A.C.A No. 2305 of 2007 6 on the entire amount of compensation awarded as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (2011 (3) KLT 943), we clarify. 13. In the result: a. This appeal is allowed in part. b. The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand only) in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. c. We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim to the date of payment. d. We further clarify that proportionate cost shall be calculated as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (2011 (3) KLT 943) e. We direct that the 3rd respondent Insurance company shall satisfy the award by making payment of the entire amount. f. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. sd/- R.BASANT (JUDGE) sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE) rkc //True Copy// PA to Judge