IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1403 of 2007() ----------------------- OP(MV).1654/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ----------------- 1. OMANA @ LALITHAKUMARI, D/O DEVAKI AMMA, THENNATTIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT MOTHIRAKANNI DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MOTHIRAKANNI P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ANITHAMOL, D/O OMANA @ LALITHAKUMARI, THENNATTIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT MOTHIRAKANNI DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MOTHIRAKANNI P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------- 1. BABU DEVASSY, S/O DEVASSY, ARIKKATH HOUSE, KAROOR P.O. 2. SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O DIVAKARA PILLAI, EDAVANTHALAYIL HOUSE, CHAIPINKUZHY P.O. 3. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY. 4. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY MENON, THATHAMPILLY HOUSE, MOTHIRAKANNI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1403 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No.1654 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. They claim to be the dependents of deceased Anoop, aged 18 years, who died in a motor accident on 22.11.2001. While the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing Registration No.KL-7/H 505, through Chalakudy Public road, the second respondent who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, applied sudden brake, and the deceased who was standing on the bus lost his balance, he was thrown away from the vehicle and get dashed against an electric post, causing serious injuries and succumbed to the same on 26.11.2001. The Tribunal found that the second respondent was negligent in driving the vehicle. MACA No.1403 of 2007 2 2. The Insurance Company though contended that the second respondent did not have a valid licence, in the absence of any materials produced in support of the plea, the Insurance Company was not permitted to recover the amount from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the vehicle, the insurance coverage having admitted, the third respondent was made liable to pay the compensation. 3. Coming to the quantification of the amount due and payable to the claimants, the Tribunal took 10 as the multiplier stating that the deceased was a bachelor. His monthly income was fixed as Rs.1500/-, though it was claimed that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.4500/- as a Mason, the same was not accepted. The mother was found entitled for the amount awarded, since others did not prove any dependency on the deceased. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the multiplier adopted at 10 is too low, compared to the age of the mother who was having 37 years, MACA No.1403 of 2007 3 and considering the age of the deceased as 18, the appropriate multiplier ought to have been fixed either at 16 or 17. We find that the maximum multiplier that is to be adopted in this case, taking into consideration the age of the deceased is 16. We accordingly fix 16 as the multiplier. The monthly income fixed by the court is also too low, and considering the fact that he is a Mason, his income ought to have been fixed at Rs.2000/= per month. Though income of the dependents is taken as 2/3, we are of the view that possibility of the victim getting married, whereby the dependency benefit could be reduced, has necessarily to be borne in mind, while quantifying the amount. Therefore, we find that though 2/3 could be taken for a period of 7 years, till the deceased could have reached 25 years, thereafter the dependency benefit could be reduced to 1/3. 5. Accordingly, on re-calculation of the amount, as stated above, we find that the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,84,000/- as compensation towards the 'loss of dependency'. After deducting the amount already paid under this MACA No.1403 of 2007 4 head, Rs.1,20,000/-, the appellants will be entitled to a balance amount of Rs.64,000/- under this head. We also find that the amounts awarded under other heads do not require any modification, as such. 6. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads was Rs.1,99,168/-. Adding a sum of Rs.64,000/- to the said amount, the total compensation payable to the appellants comes to Rs.2,63,168/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum. Ordinarily, the rate of interest to be awarded is at 7% per annum. Accordingly, we hold that instead of 6%, the total award amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. We award a further amount of Rs.64,000/=, by way of compensation towards the 'loss of dependency', and the entire amount of compensation including the additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of petition till the day of payment. The Insurance Company shall deposit the said MACA No.1403 of 2007 5 amount, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.