IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 MFA.No. 69 of 2003(B) ------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.977/1997 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI. .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD., NILAMBOOR. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS AND 1,2 & 4TH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M.P.MATHEW, S/O. PHILIP, MEPPURATH HOUSE, KOOTAMBARA DESOM, AMARABALAM AMSOM, NILAMBOOR 2. SMT.THANGAMMA MATHEW, W/O. M.P.MATHEW, MEPPURATH HOUSE, KOOTAMBARA DESOM, AMARAMBALAM AMSOM, NILAMBOOR 3. K.MANI, S/O. RAMAN, KAMUKKIL HOUSE, P.O.AMBALAVAYIL, SULTHANBATHERY. 4. K.B.SASIKUMAR, CHOOKKAD AMSOM, P.O.CHOKKAD. 5. V.MUHAMMED, NELLIYALAM, BITHRUKAD, GUDALLUR TALUK. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY, MR.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA, SMT.DEEPA.G.PAL, R3 BY ADV. MR.S.M.PRASANTH, R4 BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M.F.A. NO: 69 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd January, 2009. JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The Insurance Company aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P(MV) 977/1997 has come up in appeal. It was a claim petition preferred by the father and mother of Leni Mathew who sustained injuries in an accident which took place on 19.1.1996. He was riding a motor cycle. A jeep bearing registration No: KLO 6503 driven rash and negligently by its driver K.B.Sashikumar hit the motor cycle. Leni Mathew was thrown away. He was hospitalised and even after prolonged treatment, he sucumbed to the injuries. So his parents, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the claim petition claiming an amount of Rs.7,12,000/-. 2. Though the present owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, the driver and the insurance company contested the case. From the side of the applicants Exts.A1 to A10 were marked and from the side of the respondents Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record and after hearing M.F.A.No: 69/2003 2 both sides awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,01,300/- . The break-up of the amounts awarded is given below:- Transport to hospital Rs. 3,000/- Treatment and medical expenses Rs.2,34,000/- Dependency Rs.2,44,800/- Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- ------------------------- Total Rs.5,01,300/- ============= 3. In this appeal the appellant insurance company only challenges the award of amount under the head “dependency”. According to the appellant the multiplier 17 taken by the MACT is unjustified. The monthly income of the deceased was taken as Rs.1,800/- after deducting 1/3rd of it, the monthly income was treated as Rs.1,200/-. When the annual income was multiplied with the multiper of 17 the amount under the heading dependency was arrived at Rs.2,44,800/-. The appellant submits that the age of the father and mother of the deceased at the time of accident was 63 and 55 respectively. The injured was at the relevant time aged only 22. Though he may live for more than 17 years, his parents would not have lived for such a long period, it is submitted. So, the M.F.A.No: 69/2003 3 adoption of the multiplier as provided under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', mechanically, is not justified, it is submitted. The age of the parents which is relevant should also have to be taken into account. So, the multiplier should be brought down to 8, it is contended. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the appeal is not maintainable in the absence of an order of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act. Though in the appeal memorandum there is a vague pleading that there is such an order. The details of that order are not given. In the absence of any order under Section 170 the insurance company cannot contest the case on merits. It can only raise the grounds available under Section 149(2). Secondly it is submitted that the mother is aged only 55 and she can be normally expected to live for another 17 years. So, the multiplier of 17 taken is fully justified. 5. We notice that no material has been produced by the insurance company to show that there is an order by the Tribunal under Section 170 enabling it to contest the matter on merits. We are also of the view that though the father is aged 63 the mother is aged only 55. It can be normally expected that, she would live for another 17 years as the dependent of her son who was aged only M.F.A.No: 69/2003 4 22. As on today, they have lived for 12 years after the accident. So, the multiplier of 17 taken on the facts of this case, cannot be described as mechanical adoption of the multiplier as provided under Section 163A read with schedule II of the Act. In the result there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO:69 OF 2003 --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: 23rd January, 2009.