IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 409 of 2011(A) ---------------------- OPMV.292/2006 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. S.N.AIYAR @ SUBRAMANYAM NARASINHA AIYAR, AGED 59 YEARS, SON OF K.P.SUBRAMANYAM. 2. RADHA NARASINHA @ RADHA, AGED 53 YEARS, WIFE OF S.N.AIYAR. BOTH APPELLANTS RESIDING AT B-14, CHOICE GARDENS, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA.P.O., KOCHI-682 019, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER SRI.G.ARUN GOPAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. PAREED PILLY T.D @ PAREED PILLAI, THARAKANDATHIL HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHOM.P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 105. 2. ANWAR AZAD.M., S/O.MOHAMMED AZAD, 6-D, CORAL CRIST APARTMENTS, S.R.M.ROAD, KALOOR.P.O., COCHIN-682 017. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, N.PARAVUR, PIN-683 513. ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.409 of 2011-A ***************************** Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The claimants are the appellants. They claimed compensation for loss suffered by them consequent to the death of their son aged 23 years in a road traffic accident which occurred on 20/8/05. They claimed a total amount of Rs.15 lakhs. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.5,94,150/- as per details shown below: i) Loss of dependency - Rs.4,80,000/- ii) Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/- (underwent treatment in the hospital for 3 days before death) iii) Medical and Miscellaneous expenses - Rs. 88,150/- iv) Funeral Expenses - Rs. 5,000/- v) Loss of love and affection - Rs. 6,000/- (Rs.3,000/- each) vi) Loss of estate - Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.5,94,150/- ======= M.A.C.A No.409 of 2011-A 2 3. We do of course note that the Tribunal in the operative portion had directed payment of only an amount of Rs.5,29,900/-. We reckon that only as a clerical/typographical error. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant was requested to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the award on three planks. (i) That Rs.5,000/- reckoned as the multiplicand is too low; ii) 12 taken as the multiplier is too low; iii) The amounts of compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of estate and loss of love and affection are too meagre. 5. We have considered the challenge on all the 3 grounds. The deceased, it is evident, did not have a stable employment at the time of the accident. It was claimed that he had a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration and a Diploma in Hotel Management. Though it was claimed that he was employed as the Marketing Executive of Reliance, no document whatsoever was produced to prove such employment or the income that he was actually earning at the time of the M.A.C.A No.409 of 2011-A 3 accident. However, reliance was placed on Ext.A16 to advance a contention that after his death a letter subsequently was issued by a company offering him employment on a monthly income of Rs.20,500/-. It is the case of the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant that considering his qualification, certainly an amount higher than Rs.5,000.00 must have been reckoned as the monthly income. 6. There is no evidence tendered of the actual income which the deceased was getting at the time of the accident. Ext.A16 which bears the date 03.08.2005 speaks about the possibility of a future employment from 03.09.2005. The accident having taken place on 20.08.2005, we are unable to find anything unreasonable, irrational or perverse in the course adopted by the Tribunal of not placing undue importance on Ext.A16 offer of employment. In the total absence of any other satisfactory evidence, except the qualifications of the deceased, the Tribunal reckoned Rs.5,000/- as the probable income at the time of the accident. 7. Following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)] in respect of the deceased, a bachelor, one half of the income alone could have been taken as the possible contribution. The deceased was aged 23 years. It M.A.C.A No.409 of 2011-A 4 was only reasonable to assume that he would have got married shortly, in which event the contribution to the parents/appellants must necessarily have been reduced. The Tribunal did not discuss these various possibilities, but felt that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be reckoned as the multiplicand. Two third (2/3) was reckoned as the contribution to the parents and 12 reckoned as the multiplier. The Tribunal evidently felt that this would work out justice. The younger of the two claimants/parents was aged between 45 and 50 years and going by the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the adoption of 12 as the multiplier cannot, at any rate, be faulted. We do alertly note that the other parent/claimant/appellant belongs to a higher age bracket. The Tribunal, as indicated earlier, has not reduced any amount on the ground of diminution in contribution after the possible date of marriage. To sum up, we are of the opinion that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be unjust or unreasonable. The primary mandate to the Tribunal is to award just and reasonable compensation. The multiplier- multiplicand method and various other principles being only steps in aid for that for that ultimate mission. We are satisfied that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency M.A.C.A No.409 of 2011-A 5 does not warrant appellate interference at the instance of the claimants/appellants. 8. Though challenge is raised about the quantum of compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of love and affection etc., we find that just and reasonable amounts have been awarded under those heads. 9. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded – Rs.5,94,150/- does not warrant any interference. 10. In the result, we dismiss the appeal, but we make it clear that notwithstanding the error in the operative portion of the impugned award, the appellant shall be entitled to get an amount of Rs.5,94,150/- (less the principal amount awarded under Section 140 Cr.P.C) with interest and cost. 11. We note that in spite of the judgment in Kalesh v. Sudheer [2010(1) KLT 537], which has been published on 15.02.2010 in the journals, the Tribunal in the award dated 29.09.2010 has not complied with the direction that a tabular statement must be given in the award as insisted by para.6 of the said judgment. M.A.C.A No.409 of 2011-A 6 12. Call for a report from the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, as to why there has been non compliance with the specific directions issued in the said judgment. We expect all Tribunals to scrupulously comply with the directions for purposes mentioned in that judgment. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/