IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1928 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.653/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. M.K.K.MAHIN, S/O.LATE HUSSANKUTTY, PATTEL HOUSE, NADAVATH, MOGRAL VILLAGE P.O., VIA KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. S.P.JAMEELA, W/O.M.K.K.MAHIN, PATTEL HOUSE, KADAVATH, MOGRAL VILLAGE P.O., VIA KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. DAMODARAN, S/O.KANDAKORAN, DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KASARGOD BUS STATION, P.O.KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA STATE. 3. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PRESS CLUB JUNCTION, KASARAGOD. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA STATE. ADV. MR.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R2 MR.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 MR.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R1 MR .JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON 24/06/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. --------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1928 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim,J. 1. The appellants are the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasargod in OP(MV) No.653/2000. The claim pertains to death of their son in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 1.6.2000. The accident occurred when the motor cycle driven by the deceased was hit by a KSRTC Bus. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained, on the same day itself while undergoing treatment at hospital. 2. The deceased was at the age of 25 years. It was claimed that he was working as a Computer Assistant in a private hospital, at the time of the accident. But the Tribunal had not accepted Ext.A6 salary certificate, alleging that it was not marked and proved in the manner as required under law. But Ext.X1 is the Attendance Register of the said hospital, summoned and marked in evidence, which showed that the deceased was an employee in that hospital. Under these circumstances, inspite of the claim of Rs.4,500/- as monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted only a notional income of Rs.1500/- per month, for the purpose of calculation of MACA.1928/05 2 loss of estate and dependency. After reducing 1/3rd of the amount for personal expenditure the multiplicant adopted by the Tribunal was only Rs.12,000/- per annum. The appellants also contended that nothing was awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering as well as loss of love and affection. Therefore it is argued that the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate. 3. On an anxious scanning of the award we feel that the method adopted by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculation of compensation is not correct and valid. The deceased was at his age of 21 years. The parents are the claimants. Under normal expectancy the deceased would have got married within few years, if he would have been alive. Therefore it is not proper to compute loss of dependency adopting the normal multiplier, for the entire period. At the same time we feel that inspite of evidence adduced by way of Ext.X1 to prove that he was employed in a private hospital, the notional income of Rs.1500/- adopted by the Tribunal is not justifiable and reasonable. Further there is no justification for declining compensation under the heads of pain and suffering as well as loss of love and affection of the parents/claimants. Hence we feel that a re-working of the computation is highly necessary. As observed by the tribunal, the correct multiplicant to be adopted in this case is 17. But on our considered opinion the full dependency MACA.1928/05 3 for the parents can be computed only for a period of 5 years. We adopt the net income of the deceased, after deducting personal expenses, as Rs.2000/- per month. Hence for the first 5 years the compensation for dependency is calculated at Rs.1,20,000/- (2000x12x5). For the remaining 12 years we took the dependency to the appellants at a net rate of Rs.1000/- per month. This will entitle the appellants for a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- (1000x12x12). Thus the total compensation under the head of loss of estate and dependency is modified as Rs.2,64,000/-. We feel that an award of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection will be just and reasonable. Thus the total compensation stands enhanced by an additional sum of Rs.85,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total amount of Rs.2,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal by another sum of Rs.85,000/-. The total compensation including the original sum and the additional amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. The 2nd respondent is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb