IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1579 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.798/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. RAZYA BEEVI.M, THARAYIL HOUSE, PILAPPUZHA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. JIJI SHAMSUDDIN, THARAYIL HOUSE, PILAPPUZHA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. JAZEENA SHAMSUDDIN, THARAYIL HOUSE, PILAPPUZHA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN @ KANNAN, KANNAMRAMPATHU VEEDU, CHITTATTUKARA PANCHAYATH WARD NO.IV, PALLAMTHURATHUKARA, PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-680 511. 2. MOHANAN, KACHANIKODATHU HOUSE, VALLUVALLY, KOONAMMAVU-683 518. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AISWARYA BUILDINGS, KAYAMKULAM-690 502. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH S.C. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimants are the appellants. They are the mother, brother and sister respectively of deceased Fazil Shamsudheen, a boy aged 14 years. Claimants/appellants claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of the said Fazil Shamsudheen who succumbed to injury suffered in a motor accident which took place on 09/05/2000. He succumbed to the injuries on 12/05/2000. 2. Against a total claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,81,300/- along with interest and costs as per the details given below. Sl.No Head of claim Amount awarded (Rs.) 1. Dependency (Rs.15,000/- x 2/3 x 15) 1,50,000/- 2. Transport to Hospital 2,500/- 3. Damage to clothing 800- 4. Funeral expenses 3,000/- 5. pain and sufferings 10,000/- Total 1,81,300/- M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 2 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent /insurance company have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not sufficient. The amount of Rs.1,81,300/- is not just and reasonable compensation for the loss suffered by the claimants, submits the learned counsel for the appellants. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that in any view of the matter, the impugned award warrants interference inasmuch as even the amount payable under Section 163A of the M.V.Act has not been made available to the claimants. 5. Ascertainment of compensation payable when the deceased is a young child poses a lot of challenges for the adjudicator. In the instant case, we have absolutely no materials to prove any special capabilities, achievements or accomplishments of the deceased child. The only material available is that the deceased child was aged about 14 years. He had not admittedly started earning. It is, in this context, that the compensation has to be ascertained. The evidence of PW1, the M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 3 first claimant, mother of the deceased is, of course, there. That reveals that she is a widow and that she has to necessarily depend on her children including the deceased child. The deceased was a student of the tenth standard and certainly a couple of years separate the deceased from the attaining of majority whereafter only one can reasonably expect the child to work and earn his livelihood. 6. In similar situations, this Court has taken the view that it would be absolutely safe to conclude that the claimants are entitled atleast for the amount which should be payable under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. The decisions in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Muneer [2003(1)KLT 137] and Sree Devi v. K.S.R.T.C. [2011(3) KLT 716] are directly on the point. 7. We, therefore, made an attempt to ascertain what would be the amount payable under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. We do note that under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the deceased child would come under horizontal entry No.1 (victims aged up to 15 years). In the absence of any better evidence, invoking clause 6 of the second schedule it can be assumed that the monthly earnings of the deceased is Rs.1,250/-. M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 4 His actual income therefore can be reckoned as Rs.15,000/-. 8. The next attempt must be to ascertain the relevant vertical column of the table under clause 1 of the second schedule into which the deceased can be fitted into. It can safely be hold that the deceased child, based on the presumption of prudence under clause 6, must be held to fall in the group of persons earning above Rs.12,000/- up to Rs.18,000/-. He, therefore, comes under vertical column No.10. At the point where X-axis (horizontal entry No.1) and the Y-axis (vertical entry No.10) meet, we get the amount of compensation specified in Rupees in thousands and 360 (Rs.3,60,000/-) is the amount so stipulated at the point of intersection. The note under the table in clause 1 mandates that 1/3 of the amount must be reduced in consideration of the living expenses of the victim. That would mean that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- [Rs.3,60,000/- x 2/3) as compensation under clause 1 of the second schedule. 9. In addition, in a case of death claimants are entitled to the amounts specified under clause 3 of the second schedule. Though there are indications to suggest that medical expenses have been incurred, no documents are produced. Even without M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 5 production of any documents under clause 3(i), an amount of Rs.2,000/- is liable to be paid as compensation for funeral expenses and under clause 3(iii) an amount of Rs.2,500/- is liable to be paid as loss of estate. To prove these claims, the law does not insist that any document need be produced. 10. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants under Section 163A of the M.V.Act are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,44,500/- as compensation as shown below. i) Compensation for fatal accident Rs.2,40,000/- under clause 1 (Rs.3,60,000/- x 2/3) ii) Funeral expenses under Section 3(i) Rs.2,000/- iii) Loss of estate under Section 3(iii) Rs.2,500/- ------------------- Total Rs.2,44,500/- ======== 11. In the above view that we have taken, we are satisfied that the claimants cannot claim any further amount of compensation. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded as costs. Counsel argues and we agree that proportionate costs in the proceedings before the tribunal for the entire amount of M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 6 compensation awarded has to be paid to the claimants as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]. 13. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.63,200/- [Rs.2,44,500/- minus Rs.1,81,300/-] (Rupees sixty three thousand two hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of payment/realisation. d) We, however, direct that no interest shall be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay i.e. 608 days as already held by us in the application for condonation of delay. e) Proportionate costs in the proceedings before the tribunal on the entire amount of M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 7 compensation shall be paid as per the decision in Jeena (Supra). f) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 8 M.A.C.A.No.1579 of 2011 9 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010