IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 827 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.441/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., POLLACHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. KAMALAKSHI, W/O. SREENIVASAN, HOUSE NO.65, WARD NO.3, PALLAM.P.O., MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 532. 2. ANU, S/O. LATE SREENIVASAN, HOUSE NO.65, WARD NO.3, PALLAM.P.O., MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 532. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.1310 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.827 of 2011-A ***************************** Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Insurer is the appellant. Quantum of compensation is the only contention raised. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.4,08,500/- as compensation as per the details given below: 1. Loss of dependency : Rs.3,84,000.00 (36,000 X 2/3 X 16) 2. Mental agony : Rs. 10,000.00 3. Pain and suffering : Rs. 2,000.00 4. Transportation : Rs. 1,000.00 5. Damage to clothing : Rs. 500.00 6. Funeral expenses : Rs. 4,000.00 7. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 5,000.00 8. Loss of estate : Rs. 2,000.00 ---------------------- Total : Rs.4,08,500.00 ========== 2. There is a delay of 617 days in filing the appeal. We have heard the counsel. Prima facie we are not satisfied that the M.A.C.A No.827 of 2011-A 2 long delay of 617 days deserves to be condoned. The petition for condonation of delay hence deserves to be dismissed. 3. We have called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the nature of the challenge that he wants to raise against the impugned award, in our anxiety to ensure that rejection of the plea of the prayer for condonation of delay does not work out injustice. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that he wants to challenge the award only on two specific grounds. The learned counsel urges that the multiplier 16 taken into reckoning by the Tribunal is excessive. Deceased was a man aged about 22 years. Going by the second schedule, the multiplier applicable would be 17. Evidently the Tribunal has not taken the multiplier applicable to the deceased. 16 has been adopted as the multiplier and as per the second schedule, that is the multiplier applicable for persons aged 35-40 years. No specific and precise evidence was made available to the Tribunal about the age of the claimant/mother, it is contended. That appears to be a fact. But it is seen that the claimant/mother is shown to be aged 40 years as per the petition. In the absence of any clinching evidence either way, the Tribunal went by the M.A.C.A No.827 of 2011-A 3 averment in the petition, which was not specifically controverted and reckoned the claimant/mother as one belonging to the age group 35-40 years. We are certainly not satisfied that the alleged error committed by the Tribunal is so gross or unreasonable to conclude that this appeal warrants admission on that score. 4. The next plank of challenge is that the amount awarded under the head of mental agony Rs.10,000.00 is not legally sustainable. We have extracted the amounts awarded under the other heads. In any view of the matter, we are not satisfied that the appeal deserves admission for consideration of the challenge on the ground that the amount of Rs.10,000.00 awarded under the head of mental agony warrants interference. 5. Evidently the Tribunal had intended to award a total amount of Rs.12,000/- under the head of pain, suffering and trauma. That conclusion does not warrant appellate interference. 6. It follows from the above discussions that viewed on merits also, the amount awarded does not warrant interference and the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not M.A.C.A No.827 of 2011-A 4 work out injustice. The application for condonation of delay is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Consequently the appeal shall also stand dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/