IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1588 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.2562/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN OP.(MV) ----------------------------------------------- 1. M.ABOO, AGED 57 YEARS, H.NO.33/1204 A, CHULLIPPARAMBU, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O., COCHIN-28. 2. NABEESA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.M.ABOO, DO.DO. 3. MAJEED, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.M. ABOO, DO.DO. 4. HASEENA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.M.ABOO, DO. DO. 5. SUDHEER, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.M.ABOO, DO.DO. 6. SHAMEER, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.M. ABOO, DO.DO. 7. SAGEER, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.M.ABOO, DO. DO. 8. NASSAR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.M.ABOO, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.V.A.GANGUJA SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. MACA.NO.1588/06 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN O.P(MV). -------------------------------------- 1. E.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, VIDYA NIVAS, KUNNUMPURAM, EDAPPALLY P.O. (REGISTERED OWNER OF THE SCOOTER). 2. ABDUL RAHIM YOUNES, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM (RIDER OF THE SCOOTER). 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24 (INSURER). ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1588 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.2562/1997 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 14, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1, 86,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of deceased Nizar in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these : Deceased Nizar was aged 17 and was working as a Mechanic in a workshop at the time of the accident. On August 24, 1997, Nizar was pillion riding on the scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-7/K.7802 which was ridden by the second respondent. When it reached at Chakkaraparambu on the National Highway, it knocked down two pedestrians and consequently overturned. Deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained at about 8.p.m. MACA.No.1588/2006 2 while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Claimants are the parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased. According to the claimants, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending scooter by second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the rider and third respondent as the insurer of the offending scooter are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. First respondent, the owner of the offending scooter remained absent before the Tribunal. The second respondent, the rider of the offending scooter filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denying the liability. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending scooter filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. First claimant, the father of the deceased was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. On the side of the contesting third respondent, Ext.B1, the copy of the policy was marked. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending scooter by second MACA.No.1588/2006 3 respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,86,000/-. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,86,000/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under : Loss of dependency -Rs. 1,60,000/- Transportation expenses -Rs. 1,000/- Funeral expenses -Rs. 3,000/- Carriage expenses -Rs. 2,000/- Pain and suffering -Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection -Rs. 10,000/- ----------------- Total - Rs. 1,86,000/- =========== MACA.No.1588/2006 4 8. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency. He submitted that the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum which is very low and that the deceased was working as a Mechanic in a workshop and used to earn more than that amount. There is force in the above contention. The deceased was aged only 17 at the time of the accident. First claimant, his father had testified as PW1 before the Tribunal that the deceased was working as a Mechanic in a workshop. Therefore, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased should have been taken atleast as Rs. 2,500/- per month. Therefore, we fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/-. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per annum can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal took the multiplier as 16 which is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 3,20,000/-. Therefore, on this count, claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. As regards, the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be MACA.No.1588/2006 5 reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 9. In the result, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1588/2006 6