IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1388 of 2005() ------------------------------- OPMV.750/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VATAKARA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS : ---------------------------------------- 1. SHYMALA P.K., W/O.LATE KRISHNAN, MOONNUKANDAM CHALIL HOUSE, P.O.MELADI, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. AISWARYALAKSHMI (MINOR), D/O.LATE KRISHNAN, MOONNUKANDAM CHALIL HOUSE, P.O.MELADI, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. ADITHYA KIRAN (MINOR), S/O.LATE KRISHNAN MOONNUKANDAM CHALIL HOUSE, P.O., MELADI, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. JANU, W/O.APPU, (DECEASED), MOONNUKANDAM CHALIL HOUSE, P.O.MELADI, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. * ADDL. APPELLANTS 5 AND 6 IMPLEADED * 5. ANANDAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. APPU, MOONNUKANDAM CHALIL, P.O, PAYYOLI, KOYILANDI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. *6. NIRMALA.M.C. AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANAN, MOONNUKANDAM CHALIL, P.O. PAYYOLI, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRIT. LR'S OF THE DECEASED 4TH APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 5 AND 6 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.2011 IN I.A.NO.1668/11 IN MACA NO.1388/2005. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.MUNEER, S/O.ABOOBACKER, PARIYATTU MEETHAL HOUSE, P.O.TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY. MACA.No. 1388 of 2005() 2. P.T.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KANNAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KOLARATT STREET, P.O.CHOMBALA, VATAKARA TALUK, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, CHOMBALA DESOM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MAIN ROAD, VATAKARA P.B.NO.17, POLICY NO. 100805/31/040/1/35819/1998. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ln R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1388 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT R. BASANT,J. Claimants are the appellants. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the husband/father/son in a motor accident which took place on 04.09.1999. The deceased was a travelling ticket examiner in the Indian Railways, earning an income of Rs.6996/-(per month at the time of his death). He was aged 36 years. He had left behind his wife, two minor children and his mother, who were allegedly depending on him. Mother expired during the pendency of this appeal and the legal heirs of the mother have come on record as additional appellants. 2. Against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.9,18,488/- as per the details given below: M.A.C.A. No.1388 of 2005 2 Sl.No. Head Amount awarded 1 Loss of dependency (6996X12X2/3X16) Rs.8,95,488/- 2 Funeral Rs.2000/- 3 Transport Rs.1000/- 4 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 5 Consortium Rs.5000/- 6 Love and affection Rs.5000/- Total Rs. 9,18,488/- =========== That amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and respondent/Insurance company. The challenge is only against the alleged inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain, the nature of the challenge and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various specific grounds: 4. The income of the deceased reckoned by the Tribunal to ascertain loss of dependency is grossly inadequate and the same does not take into account the future prospects in employment of M.A.C.A. No.1388 of 2005 3 the deceased, a person in settled and stable employment under the railways. 5. The quantum of compensation awarded under the head of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of affection are unrealistically low and inadequate contends the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company alertly points out that the Tribunal has incorrectly adopted 16 as the multiplier though following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[(2009) 6 SCC 1211] only 15 can be reckoned as the multiplier for the deceased, a person aged between 35 and 40 years. 6. We are in ready agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that due provision must have been made for improvement of the prospects in employment. Going by Sarla Verma, we are satisfied that 50% addition has to be provided. We agree with the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that only 15 can be reckoned as the multiplier in the facts and circumstances of this case. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded M.A.C.A. No.1388 of 2005 4 under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection deserves to be modified/enhanced. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amounts in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Loss of dependency : Rs.3,63,792/- (Rs.6996X150/100X12X2/3X15= 12,59,280-8,95,488/-) Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/- (5000-2000) Loss of consortium : Rs.15,000/- (20000-5000) Loss of love and affection : Rs.10,000/- (15,000-5000) --------------------- Total Rs. 3,91,792/- ------------------------- ------------------------- 8. Interest was awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellants contends and we accept that interest must have been awarded at a higher rate. We are satisfied that the interest can be ordered to be paid @ 7.5% per annum. M.A.C.A. No.1388 of 2005 5 9. In the result: a. This appeal is allowed in part. b. The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.3,91,792/-(Rupees three lakhs ninety one thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c. We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment/realisation. d. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ln