IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1445 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.48/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONER IN OP(MV): ------------------------------------------ 1. A.V.PAPPU, ANATHUKUDY, CHENGAL, KALADY, (F/O. DECEASED ANTONY A.P.). 2. ANNAMKUTTY PAPPU, W/O.A.V.PAPPU, ANATHUKUDY, CHENGAL, KALADY, (M/O.DECEASED ANTONY.A.P). 3. A.P.VARKEY, S/O.A.V.PAPPU, ANATHUKUDY, CHENGAL, KALADY. (B/O.DECEASED ANTONY.A.P.) 4. A.P.THOMAS, S/O.A.V.PAPPU, ANATHUKUDY, CHENGAL, KALADY, (B/O.DECEASED ANTONY A.P.). 5. A.P.MARY, D/O.A.V.PAPPU, ANATHUKUDY, CHENGAL, KALADY. (S/O.DECEASED ANTONY.A.P). BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAJEEV SRI.M.V.JOY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. K.P.JACOB, S/O.POULOSE, KATTUMMAL HOUSE, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. K.J.SUNNY, S/O.JOSE, PARTNER, M/S.BAND SAW MILLS, AMBALLOOR, PUTHUKKAD P.O. MACA : 1445/2006 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., P.B.NO.158, MAHESWARI BUILDING, III FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, TRICHUR-680 001. 4. MANOJ.M.K, S/O.KUMARAN, MADATHOTHUKUDY, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL. 5. GOPI, S/O.SIVAN, THARANILATH HOUSE, KANJOOR P.O., KALADY. 6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.V.BINOY RAM R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO JOSEPH R6 BY ADV.SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1445 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered on account of the death of the deceased. Claimants are the parents and siblings of the deceased. They claimed an amount of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation. Deceased was shown to be aged 26 years. He was allegedly working in an automobile workshop. He was also undertaking the work relating to collection and loading of sand. It was claimed that the deceased had a monthly earning of Rs.4,000/-. He met with his death on the date of the accident itself, i.e., 03.10.99. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. Before the Tribunal, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. 2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances proceeded to pass the impugned award MACA:1445/06 -:2:- directing payment of an amount of Rs.1,18,050/- as compensation, as per the details shown below: 1. Transportation to hospital :Rs. 2,500/- 2. Damage to clothing :Rs. 250/- 3. Pain and suffering :Rs. 5,000/- 4. Funeral expenses :Rs. 2,500/- 5. Loss of love and affection :Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of dependency :Rs. 92,800/- (2000 x 12 x 4x 2/3) ------------------ Total :Rs.1,18,050/- =========== 3. The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 4. Appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of their grievance, the learned counsel for the appellants contends first of all that the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/-, is painfully low. Multiple injuries have been suffered and the deceased breathed his last on his way to the hospital. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that an amount of Rs.7,500/- can be granted as compensation under the head of pain and suffering. The main plank of challenge is the MACA:1445/06 -:3:- compensation awarded for dependency. It is contended that the multiplicand reckoned at Rs.2,000/- is too low. Even from 1994 the law permits the presumption of prudence that even a non-earning person can be assumed to earn an amount of Rs.1,250/- per month. Reliance is placed on Ext.A6 certificate issued by the employer of the appellant to show that his monthly income was Rs.3,000/-. Counsel further contends that the adoption of 4 as the multiplier is in any view of the matter wrong. The parents of the deceased were aged 63 and 58 years. For persons of the age group 55 to 60, 8 is the multiplier and for persons of the age group 60 to 65 years, 5 is reckoned as the multiplier in the Second Schedule for permanent disablement and 6 is the multiplier adopted for ascertaining the compensation payable for death against various entries in the Second Schedule. Counsel in these circumstances submits that the Tribunal had grossly erred in adopting 4 as the multiplier. 5. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier and the multiplicand adopted by the MACA:1445/06 -:4:- Tribunal requires modification. We are of the view that reckoning of Rs.2,500/- as the multiplicand and 6 as multiplier shall serve the ends of justice eminently in the circumstances of the case. This is a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under Section 163 A. But, notwithstanding that, it is now trite that, the entires in the Second Schedule can profitably be imported as a guide while ascertaining the amount payable under Section 166 of the Act. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves appellate interference. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for the following further amounts as compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. 1. Pain and suffering :Rs. 2,500/- (7,500 minus 5,000) 2. Loss of dependency :Rs.27,200/- (2500 x 12x 6x2/3 =1,20,000 minus 92,800) ----------------- Total :Rs.29,700/- ========== 7. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall MACA:1445/06 -:5:- carry interest from the date of the petition at the rate directed by the Tribunal. 8. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT, JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE ttb MACA:1445/06 -:6:- MACA:1445/06 -:7:-