IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 2220 of 2010 ----------------------- OPMV.541/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. MARIYA, W/O.(LATE) MAMMED KOYA, AGED 53 YEARS. 2. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.(LATE) MAMMED KOYA, AGED 34 YEARS. 3. ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.LATE MAMMED KOYA, AGED 32 YEARS. 4. MAMMOONATH, D/O.(LATE) MAMMED KOYA, AGED 30 YEARS. (ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIRUVOTH HOUSE, IRINGALLUR, GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE.) BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSAAN KOYA, S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA HAJI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT MELE KACHERI PUNATHIL HOUSE, PO PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE- 673019. 2. JITHESH, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALATTUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.CHATHAMANGALAM, REC, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673001. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVL.OFFICE, SEEMA BUILDING, GENERAL POST OFFICE, G.H.ROAD, KOZHIKDE-673001. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 2220 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 4th day of August 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The claimants are the appellants. They are the wife aged 53 years and three adult children aged 30 years and above. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their husband/father who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 9/3/2007 and succumbed to the same. Against a total amount of Rs.6 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,12,500/- as per the details given in paragraph 12 of the impugned award which we extract below: 1)Transport to hospital : Rs.1,500/- 2)Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/- MACA 2220/2010 2 3)Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/- 4)Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs.10,000/- Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/- Loss of consortium : Rs.2,500/- Loss of dependency : Rs.80,000/-(2000x12x5x2/3) Total :Rs.1,12,500/- ========= 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency is not correctly computed. The deceased was a person of the age group 60-65 years and therefore, following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009)6 S.C.C.121], 7 and not 5 should have been reckoned as the multiplier. To that extent the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency is grossly in MACA 2220/2010 3 error, submits the learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that monthly income of the deceased reckoned at Rs.2,000/- is also incorrect. A higher amount ought to have been accepted, it is contended. 4. No better evidence was produced. The Tribunal obviously appears to have drawn the presumption of prudence arising from clause 6 of the IInd Schedule and also considering the fact that said presumption was permitted to be drawn in 1994 and notwithstanding the lapse of 13 years, the same has not been properly updated. We are unable to find anything wrong in the approach made by the Tribunal in accepting Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income. Instead of 5, we agree that 7 should have been adopted as the multiplier. 5. The only other specific ground of challenge is that the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium is painfully low. The wife was aged 53 years and the MACA 2220/2010 4 husband was aged 64 years. The amount of Rs.2500/- awarded as loss of consortium is unreasonably low, contends the counsel. We agree and we are satisfied that Rs. 7500/- can be granted as compensation under that head. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves alteration at our hands. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 1)Loss of dependency :Rs.32,000/-(2000x12x2/3x7=1,12,000 – 80,000/-) 2)Loss of Consortium :Rs.5,000/-(7500-2500) Total :Rs.37,000/- ========== 7. In the result, a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by MACA 2220/2010 5 the Tribunal. c)We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE 2361 Delay. The climants are the appellants. they are the wife aged 53 years and three adult children aged 30 eyars and above. they claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of th death of their husband/father who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 9/3/2007 and succumbed to the same. Against a total amount of Rs.6 lakhs claimed as compensation, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,12,500/- as per details given in paragraph 12 of the impugned award which we extract below: The challenge is directed only against the quantum of comepnsation. Calld upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant subsmits that the impugned award under the head of loss of dpendency is not correctly computed. the deceased was a person of the age group 60-65 years and therefore, the following the dictum in Sarla Verma..7 and not 5 should have been reckoned as the multiplier to the extent the impugned award under the head of loss of dependency is grossly in err or, submits the counsel. The learned counsel further submits that monthly income of th deceased reckoned at Rs.2,000/- is also incorrect. A higher amount ought to have been expected, it is contended. No better evidence was produced. The Tribunal obviously appears to have drawn the presumption of prudence arising from clause 6 of the IInd Schedule and also considering the fact that presumption was permitted to be drawn in 1994 and notwithstanding the lapse of 13 years, the same has snot been properly updated. We are unable to find nothing wrong in the approachcc made by the Tribunal in taking Rs........2,000/- as msonthly income instead of 5. We agree that 7 should have been adopted as the multiplier. The only other specific ground of challenge is that the impugned award under the ehad of loss of consortium is painfully low. the wife was aged 53 years, husband aged 64 years an amount of Rs.2500/- awarded as loss of consoritum is reasonably low, contends the counsel. We agree that we ar satisfied that 7500/- can be granted as compensation under that head. We are not satisfied that the impugned award under any other head deserves alteration at our hands. the above discussion lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal.