IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 M.A.C.A.No. 690 of 2009(G) OPMV.2626/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 11/6/2008 --------------------------- APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS 1. THANKAMONY, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.LATE MADHAVAN, VELANTHARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ABHILASH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, VELANTHARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 3. AJISHA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN, VELANTHARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 4. MILLA @ MANKA, VELANTHARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. MR.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1. DILEEPKUMAR, S/O.BALAN, KALARICKALPARAMBU HOUSE, NEAR MODERN BAKERY, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN. 2. MUHAMMADALI, S/O.BHUKHARI, MANGALAKARA HOUSE, NETOOR P.O., MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., P.M.A.BUILDING, FEDERAL BANK JUNCTION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R3 BY ADV. DR. ELIZABETH VARKEY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No. 690 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J 1. Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(M.V) NO.2626/2002 dated 11/6/2008 on the files of the motor accidents Tribunal, Ernakulam. The husband of the first appellant is the father of appellants 2 and 3, who died in a motor accident on 10/5/2002 at 10.30am at Panangad, while he was sitting in a bakery shop situated in the southern part of the Kamoth bus stop at Panangad-Madavana Road, when a passenger bus bearing Registration No. KLI/5535 driven by the first respondent came in a high speed and hit against a car and then ran into the bakery shop and hit him causing serious injuries. Though he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained. 2. The Tribunal found that the negligence was on the M.A.C.A. No. 690 of 2009 2 part of the bus driver and the bus was covered under valid policy of insurance. As against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,25,000/- under different heads, with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of the petition till the date of award and thereafter 8% till realisation. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appeal is filed for the enhancement of the same. 3. According to the appellant, the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- is too low and it is contended that he was an agriculturist, earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. One third was deducted and balance was taken as the contribution of the deceased to his dependents. It is true that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced to prove the income of the deceased. Though the sister of the deceased was also included in the claim petition, it was found that she was not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the wife and two children were found as dependents of the deceased. The fact that he was an M.A.C.A. No. 690 of 2009 3 agriculturist is not seriously disputed. Considering the normal rate of wages payable to agricultural workers of the area, we consider that on a reasonable estimation, the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.2,500/-. 4. It was pleaded that the deceased was 60 years of age at the time of death. The Tribunal had adopted 5 as the multiplier, whether he has crossed 60 years or he was just below 60 years, is a matter on which doubt arises. The learned counsel appeared for the appellant, strenuously contended that the deceased had not completed the age of 60 years. In the absence of any evidence adduced in that regard, and being a question of fact, we can not readily accept the same. However, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, we adopt the multiplier as 6 instead of 5 as adopted by the Tribunal. On reworking the compensation, adopting 6 as the multiplier and income as Rs.2,500/-, the compensation for the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,20,000/- in place of Rs.80,000/- as fixed by the M.A.C.A. No. 690 of 2009 4 Tribunal. Thus the appellants are entitled to get the balance compensation of Rs.40,000/-. The compensation awarded under all other heads are adequate and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by granting an additional compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). The above said amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The insurance company shall deposit the amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE nl