IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1523 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.220/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 -------------- 1. ROPHY VARGHESE, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.ADV.C.J.VARGHESE, CHIRAYANKANDATH(H), CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR- 680 020. 2. JOSEPH VARGHESE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ADV.C.J.VARGHESE, CHIRAYANKANDATH (H), CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR - 680 020. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH XAVIER RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. VINOD K.R, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, KARNAPARAMBIL (H), P.O.PUZHAKKAL, MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ABDULLAH, MAMMASARA ILLATH (H), P.O.VENKINDANGU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISION OFFICE, KOLLANNUR BUILDINGS, P.B.NO.313, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R-3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1523 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Supplemental claimants are the appellants. They are the wife and 2 children of deceased C.J.Varghese, an Advocate at Trichur, who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 24.04.2001. He underwent treatment as an inpatient for a period of about 5 months and 19 days. According to the claimants, he did not recover after the accident and succumbed ultimately to the injuries suffered long later on 02.12.2003. The claim was staked by the insured/claimant, who, subsequent to the initiation of proceedings, breathed his last. His legal heirs, the appellants herein, thereafter came on record to prosecute the case. 2. Before the Tribunal it was asserted that the death was the result of the accident and the injuries suffered. The Tribunal accepted that version. Before us the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company submits that the company accepts that the death of the deceased was as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. We need not hence delve M.A.C.A No.1523 of 2011 2 deeper into that aspect of the matter. 3. Against a total claim of Rs.10 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.5,36,500/- as per the details given in para.4 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Medical and miscellaneous expenses Rs.2,37,473.00 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 3 Pain and suffering Rs. 4,000.00 4 Dependency Rs.2,24,000.00 5 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000.00 6 Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000.00 7 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs.5,36,472.00 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurer is made entirely liable under the impugned award. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of earnings. According to the claimant, the deceased was not able to pursue his income M.A.C.A No.1523 of 2011 3 earning activity after the accident on 24.04.2001 till his death on 02.12.2003. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under this head. It is seen that the respondent set up a contention that after the accident, the deceased/claimant had resumed his practice as Advocate. No satisfactory evidence is produced in support of the assertion that the deceased did not resume his practice after the accident. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that it is safe to assume that the deceased must have lost earnings as a result of the accident. He was an inpatient for a period exceeding 5 months. It is also accepted that the death was the result of the accident and the injuries suffered. Even in the absence of better evidence, we are, in these circumstances, satisfied that loss of earnings for a period of 12 months can safely be accepted. 6. It is next contended that no amount has been awarded under the head of bystander's expenses even though there are clinching indications to suggest that the deceased was an inpatient for a period exceeding 5 months. Even thereafter it is claimed that he allegedly required services of a bystander. We are satisfied that the services of a bystander must have been necessary at least for a period of 8 months. An amount of M.A.C.A No.1523 of 2011 4 Rs.24,000/- (3,000 X 8 months) can hence be awarded under the head of bystander's expenses. 7. For extra nourishment also no amount is seen awarded by the Tribunal. We are satisfied that for the period between the accident and death, compensation is liable to be awarded under the head of extra nourishment. We fix Rs.10,000/- as compensation for extra nourishment during the said period. 8. We now come to the main plank of challenge. It is contended that the amount of compensation calculated under the head of loss of dependency is not adequate. 9. The deceased/insured was an Advocate of the Thrissur Bar. He was aged 55 years. He had practiced as a lawyer for a period exceeding 20 years admittedly. A modest amount of Rs.5,000/- per mensem was claimed as the monthly income. The Tribunal accepted only Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income. Better evidence about the income is not produced. However, taking the totality of inputs into account and making due provision for future improvement in prospects, we are satisfied that Rs.5,000/- as claimed can safely be accepted as the multiplicand. 10. The Tribunal has reckoned 7 as the multiplier. The M.A.C.A No.1523 of 2011 5 learned counsel points out and we agree that going by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 9 is the appropriate multiplier for persons of the age group 55-60 years. The higher multiplier of 9 therefore deserves to beaccepted. 11. We are not persuaded to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under any other head. 12. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Loss of earnings : Rs. 60,000.00 (no amount awarded (5,000 X 12 months) by the Tribunal) ii) Bystander's expenses : Rs. 24,000.00 (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) iii) Extra nourishment : Rs. 10,000.00 ((no amount awarded by the Tribunal) iv) Loss of dependency : Rs.1,36,000.00 (5,000X12X2/3X9 = 3,60,000 minus 2,24,000) ---------------------- Total : Rs.2,30,000.00 ========= M.A.C.A No.1523 of 2011 6 13. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal; d) We direct that proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be ascertained as per the dictum in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943], on the entire amount of compensation; e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) rtr/