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 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 2297 of 2010(D) ----------------------- OPMV.2131/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. SAIDALI, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, KUNDILPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KADUNGAPURAM, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (FATHER OF THE DECEASED). 2. PATHUMMA, W/O.SAIDALI, AGED 50 YEARS, DO. DO. 3. BUSHRA, W/O.LATE ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 25 YEARS, DO. DO. 4. UNNAIS, S/O.LATE ABDUL KARIM, AGED 7 YEARS, DO. DO. 5. HUSNA, D/O.LATE ABDUL KARIM, AGED 5 YEARS, DO. DO. (4 & 5 MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 3RD APPELLANT). 6. SAIFUNNEESA, D/O.SAIDALI, AGED 17 YEARS, DO. DO. (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE IST PETITIONER HER FATHER). BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, KUTTITHODI VEETTIL, KOLARATTIL, AYIKKARAPADY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. K.MOHAMMED, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, KOLARATTIL, AYIKKARAPADY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JASEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 2297 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: NOVEMBER 23, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)2131/1998 on the file of he Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. They are the parents, wife and three minor children and sister of deceased Abdul Kareem who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated June 12, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,37,900/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of the deceased in that accident. 2. The accident happened on January 28, 1998 at about 1 p.m. at Kuriyedam. While the deceased was driving his jeep bearing registration No.KL 11/A 8983, it collided head on with the lorry bearing registration No.KL 11/A 7747 driven by the 1st respondent. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Calicut on the next day. Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, driver of the offending lorry, the claimants filed the OP before the Tribunal under sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a M.A.C.A. 2297 of 2010 2 compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 in the OP, driver and owner of the offending lorry, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending lorry, filed a written statement admitting the policy, but attributed negligence to the deceased. 4. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,37,900/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident are not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. M.A.C.A. 2297 of 2010 3 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,37,900/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transport to hospital - Rs.1,000/- loss of consortium - 10,000/- loss of love and affection - 10,000/- funeral expenses - 2,000/- loss of estate - 2,500/- pain and suffering - 10,000/- dependency 3,02,400/- 8. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency, for loss of love and affection, for loss of consortium and on other heads. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2100/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.1400/- per month was taken as his contribution to his family. As the deceased was aged 25 at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 18 was adopted by the Tribunal and a compensation of Rs.3,02,400/- was awarded for the loss of dependency. Counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased was a driver as proved by Ext.A5 driving licence and therefore he must have been earning more than Rs.3000/- per month. There is force in the above contention. As the deceased was a driver as evidenced by M.A.C.A. 2297 of 2010 4 Ext.A5, his driving licence, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2500/- which comes to Rs.30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- per annum can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 18). Therefore on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.57,600/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering endured. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for loss of love and affection, 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 we are not disturbing the same. 11. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.92,600/-. They are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. M.A.C.A. 2297 of 2010 5 12. There is another aspect in this case. There was a delay of 2500 days in filing the appeal. The claimants will not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation awarded during that period. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending lorry shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants. 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 mt/-