IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1503 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.3038/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THRISSUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHACKU, VADAKKAN HOUSE, KUTTANELLORE P.O., THRISSUR. 2. KUNJALA, W/O. CHACKU, DO. DO. 3. JEENA, W/O. LATE V.C. JACOB, DO. DO. 4. JIJO JACOB (MINOR), S/O. LATE V.C. JACOB, DO. DO. 5. JELSA (MINOR), D/O. LATE V.C. JACOB, DO. DO. (MINOR RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 3RD RESPONDENT). ADDL. 6. BIJU.P.P, S/O.PENGAN, PULIKKAN HOUSE, VALLACHIRA, THRISSUR. ADDL. 7. VITO VARGHESE, `QUITUDE', MOSCOW ROAD, CHIRA, P.O.ANCHERY, THRISSUR. (Additional respondents 6 & 7 are impleaded as per order dated 26.02.09 in I.A.129/2009) ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.1503 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The 3rd respondent before the Tribunal/insurer who was granted the requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is the appellant before us. The appellant has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.13,02571/- as compensation to the claimants who are the parents, wife and 2 minor children, aged 12 and 2 ½ years of the deceased. The deceased suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 15.10.2002. He succumbed to the injuries one day later. He was employed in the B.S.N.L. He was drawing a monthly income of Rs.7,863/- at the time of the accident. He was aged 42 years and the claimants are the only legal heirs/dependents of the deceased. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. Exts.A1 to 12 were marked. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.13,02,571/- is liable to be paid along with interest @ 7% per annum as per the details shown below. M.A.C.A. No.1503 of 2006 2 1. Expenses for transportation : Rs.2,000/- 2. Expense for extra nourishment : Rs.1,000/- 3. Damages to clothing and articles : Rs.1,000/- 4. Expense for treatment : Rs.31,100/- 5. Expense for personal assistance : Rs.200/- 6. Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs.20,000/- 7. Compensation for loss of dependency : Rs.11,32,272/- (7863 X 12 X 2/3 X 18) 8. Compensation for loss of estate : Rs.80,000/- (2000 X 12 X 2/3 X 5) 9. Compensation for loss of love and affection : Rs.30,000/- 10. Expense for funeral : Rs.5,000/- .................... Total : Rs.13,02,571/- ..................... 2. The insurer claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the reason ? Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel assails the impugned M.A.C.A. No.1503 of 2006 3 award on two specific grounds. The counsel contends that the Tribunal had incorrectly reckoned the multiplier at 18. The deceased was aged 42 years and for those in the age group of 40-45 years, second schedule prescribes the multiplier to be 15 and not 18. The mere fact that the deceased may have had a longer period of assured service prior to his retirement on superannuation does not justify the adoption of a higher multiplier especially when the multiplicand accepted by the Tribunal is the entire gross salary of the deceased. We find merit in the contention. No special or specific reasons have been shown by the Tribunal to justify the adoption of 18 as the multiplier. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contends that inasmuch as the Tribunal had exercised its discretion and there is nothing perverse in adoption of the multiplier at 18 which is now accepted to be the maximum multiplier permissible, in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, this Court may not interfere with the quantum of compensation fixed under the head of loss of dependency. We are not satisfied that the said request of the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents can be accepted. Considering the age of the deceased and the totality of circumstances of this case we M.A.C.A. No.1503 of 2006 4 are not satisfied that there is any need or justification to deviate from the multiplier shown in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has now become trite that the second schedule can certainly be made use by the Tribunal as guideline to fix the multiplier even in cases where the claim is staked under Section 166 and not 163 A. Consequently the respondents/claimants shall be entitled only for an amount of Rs.1,88,712/- less than the amount awarded by the Tribunal, ie. Rs.11,32,272/- minus Rs.9,43,560/- (Rs.7,863 X 12 X 2/3 X 15). 3. It is then contended that the Tribunal erred grossly in awarding compensation for loss of estate at Rs.80,000/-. The Tribunal assumed that after retirement from service, the deceased may have been employed profitably for a period of 5 years. Thereafter assuming a notional income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem compensation was fixed at Rs.80,000/- (2000 X 12 X 2/3 X 5) and the same was awarded under the head of loss of estate. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer contends that as a matter of fact what the Tribunal had done is to adopt 23 as the multiplier and reckon differential multiplicand for the period of service of the deceased and thereafter. After having computed the quantum of compensation by the multiplier-multiplicand M.A.C.A. No.1503 of 2006 5 method adopting the highest multiplier applicable to the age group, there is no justification at all for awarding any compensation for the period thereafter calling the same as loss of estate, contends counsel. The entire 2/3 of the income has already been awarded to the dependents and only 1/3 has been deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. It is unlikely that the estate of the deceased would have any benefit, much less to the tune of Rs.80,000/- by saving any amount from such 1/3 amount kept apart for his personal expenses. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that under the conventional head of loss of estate, at any rate, not more than Rs.5,000/- can be awarded as compensation. Consequently the respondents/claimants shall be entitled only to an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head loss of estate (ie. Rs.75,000/- less). 4. There is no challenge raised against the impugned award under any other heads in the course of arguments before us and we are satisfied that the amounts awarded under the other heads do not warrant interference. 5. It follows from the above discussions that the respondents/claimants shall be entitled for a total amount of Rs.2,63,712 (Rupees Two lakhs sixty three thousand seven M.A.C.A. No.1503 of 2006 6 hundred and twelve only) [ie. Rs.1,88,712 + Rs.75,000] less than the amounts directed by the Tribunal. 6. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR) rtr/-