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 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 734 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.811/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIOENRS. ------------------------------------- 1. MANI, W/O.LATE CHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 50, URUMBANAL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O. THODUPUZHA. 2. HARI, 31 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, DO. DO. 3. RAVEENDRAN, 29 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, DO. DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, CHILAMBIL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM KARA,KUTHIRAKKALLY BHAGOM, THANKAMONY VILLAGE, OWENR CUM DRIVER. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THODUPUZHA BRANCH. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.734 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)No.811/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. They are the wife and children of deceased Chandran Pillai who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated October 25, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,09,186/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of deceased in that accident. 2. On June 26, 2002 at about 2.10 p.m., while the deceased was piling up tapioca in his cart at Kolani, he was knocked down by the Maruthi van bearing Reg.No.KL-6/A-6127 driven by the first respondent. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the hospital on July 1, 2002. Alleging negligence against the driver of the Maruthi van, the claimants filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles MACA.No.734/2005 2 Act claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. First respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending Maruthi van filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denied the liability. The second respondent, the insurer of the offending Maruthi van filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced on the side of the second respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,09,186/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi van is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore MACA.No.734/2005 3 the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,09,186/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Loss of dependency - Rs. 1,76,000/- Loss of consortium - Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 5,000/- Treatment expenses - Rs. 4,646/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 2,000/- Transportation - Rs. 1,540/- 8. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of compensation for loss of dependency, for loss of consortium and for pain and suffering endured by the deceased . 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- which works out to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 16,000/- was taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 11 as the deceased was aged 52 at the time of the accident and awarded Rs.1,76,000/- for the loss of dependency. According to MACA.No.734/2005 4 the claimants, the deceased was a businessman earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 3,000/- which comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 24,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 11 which is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- ( 24,000 x 11). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.88,000/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the deceased. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants and in the circumstances of the case, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering endured would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. MACA.No.734/2005 5 11. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. 12. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to proportionate cost. The second respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.734/2005 6 MACA.No.734/2005 7