IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 41 of 2007 A -------------------------------------- OPMV.583/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. NEDUMPALLY MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.(L) N. MAMMUTTY, JAFSAL MANZIL,KANNAMANGALAM, P.O. VENGARA VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PATHUMMAKUTTY K., W/O. NEDUMPALLY MOHAMMEDKUTTY, JAFSAL MANZIL, KANNAMANGALAM, P.O. VENGARA VIA,MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. UMMUKULSU, D/O. NEDUMPALLY MOHAMMEDKUTTY JAFSAL MANZIL, KANNAMANGALAM, P.O. VENGARA VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. ABDUL SALAM,S/O.NEDUMPALLY MOHAMMEDKUTTY JAFSAL MANZIL, KANNAMANGALAM P.O. VENGARA VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. FASNIL RAHMAN N., S/O. NEDUMPALLY MOHAMEDKUTTY, JAFSAL MANZIL, KANNAMANGALAM P.O. VENGARA VIA., MALAPPURAM DIST. 6. FASEELA, D/O.NEDUMPALLY MOHAMMEDKUTTY, JAFSAL MANZIL, KANNAMANGALAM P.O. VENGARA VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. JAFSAL N., S/O.NEDUMPALLY MOHAMMEDKUTTY, JAFSAL MANZIL, KANNAMANGALAM P.O. VENGARA VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI MACA.NO.41 OF 2007 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. S. PALANISAMY, S/O. SELLAN, UNANTHANGAL, MULLUKURUCHI P.O., RASIPURAM TALUK, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. 2. A. EASWARI, W/O. THIRU, ANAMALAI NO.90, THEPPAKULLA,MUNISWARAR KOIL STREET AYODHIAPATTINAM, SALE TALUK P.O. SELAM (OWNER). 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE 2, SALEM P.O. ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO. 41 OF 2007 A --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellants are the parents and siblings of a final year M.B.A. student who died in a motor vehicle accident. As against the claim for Rs.9 Lakhs, a sum of Rs.3,12,000/= has been awarded by the tribunal. This Appeal is directed against the quantum. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, Insurance Company. 3. Appellant contends that the tribunal has found the income only at Rs.5,000/=. Towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/= was granted. No amount was awarded towards love and affection. Still further, no amount is awarded towards damages to clothing articles including a gold ring. MACA.41/07 A 2 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the income taken as Rs.5,000/= is on the lower side. It is stated that the deceased was a final year MBA student and he was proceeding for industrial training and the income should have been fixed at a higher level. We see no reason to increase the income to more than Rs.5,000/=. The accident took place in the year 2002. The tribunal has found that the deceased had even failed in some of the Subjects, and that it means that he was not a brilliant student, and that no reputed Company would give permanent appointment to such a person. The tribunal also noted that the evidence of PW1 would show that his son had secured admission to MBA not on merit, but on payment of money. Thereafter, noting that he would have, however, earned at least Rs.5,000/=, the amount was fixed. It is stated that Ext.A15 document, which is a letter addressed to the deceased, is not a document showing campus selection by the Company. No interference is warranted with the fixation of the income. MACA.41/07 A 3 The tribunal, thereafter, noted that the deceased would have married and relied on the decision in Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta (AIR 2006 SC 1255) in this regard. It is further noted that the parents would not have been solely dependent on the deceased, as the parents have got three grown up sons. It is thereafter considering the aspects that Rs.1,500/= is fixed as the contribution by the deceased to his parents. Taking the multiplier at 13, Rs.2,34,000/= was awarded towards loss of dependency. In this case, the evidence of PW1 would show that the sisters of the deceased have been married and they are residing with their husbands. One of the brothers of the deceased was employed and the other two brothers are grown up persons. The tribunal found that there was no dependency of the deceased. Thus, this is a case where, we are left with appellants 1 and 2 who are the parents aged 50 years and 45 years respectively. In this case, we note that the first appellant is alive and is aged 50. The tribunal has found that he was having income. We note the Apex Court has held in Civil Appeal MACA.41/07 A 4 No.3483 of 2008 as follows: “15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family MACA.41/07 A 5 of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two- third.” 5. In the light of this, we feel that this is a case where the tribunal in fixing the dependency of the parents who are appellants 1 and 2, should have deducted ½ from the income arrived at and, therefore, Rs.2,500/= should have been treated as the dependency. If Rs.2,500/= is treated as dependency, in view of paragraph 15 of the decision referred to above, the amount of compensation would be enhanced by Rs.1,56,000/=. This we award going by the decision of the Apex Court. We find that no amount is awarded towards loss of love and affection. Certainly, the appellants are entitled to Rs.10,000/= and we award the same towards loss of love and affection. The second appellant is entitled to Rs.1,66,000/= more. Accordingly, the MACA.41/07 A 6 Appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are allowed to realise a sum of Rs.1,66,000/= more with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the third respondent Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellants points out that only 6 per cent interest was awarded. We feel that it is inadequate and the amount already awarded will bear interest at 7.5 per cent instead of 6 per cent. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge