IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 238 of 2005(B) ----------------------- OPMV.182/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- M/S. PADMA METAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., 29, NAKHODA STREET, 4TH FLOOR, MUMBAI, (OWNER OF THE MARUTHI CAR MH O4N 9891). BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. KARUPPAN, CHAKKALAKKALAPARAMB, KANNUR P.O., KUZHALMANNAM. 2. SAROJINI, W/O. SUBRAMANIAN, DO. DO. 3. SURESH S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, DO. DO. 4. JAYA D/O. SUBRAMANIAN, DO. DO. 5. C.K. ERIDAS S/O. KRISHNAN, } CHEMBUKKAD HOUSE, ERIMAYOOR, } REMOVED PALAKKAD, ALATHUR TALUK. } 6. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., IVTH FLOOR, P.D.C. BANK, PALAKKAD. 5TH RESPONDENT IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 11.8.2005. ON I.A. 2398/05. ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/7/2009, THE COURT ON 27/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. `````````````````````````````````````````````` M.A.C.A. NO: 238 OF 2005 ```````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th Day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. The appellant is the first respondent in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents 1 to 4 filed the petition alleging negligence on the part of the fifth respondent, who was driving the vehicle owned by the appellant. The Tribunal accepted the case of the claimants regarding the negligence and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,67,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. Son of respondents/claimants 1 and 2 and siblings of claimants 3 and 4 died in the accident. He was aged 17 years. M.A.C.A . NO : 238 OF 2005 :2: 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the amount of dependency arrived at Rs.1,50,300/- cannot be justified. He contends that the multiplier taken is not correct. He further contends that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering cannot be justified. We find from the judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn. and another (2009 ACJ 1298) that for the age group of 41 - 45, the multiplier should be 14. We accept the said contention and we apply 14 as the multiplier. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 are entitled only to Rs.1,40,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Further, the appellant is justified in contending that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the compensation towards pain and suffering. The case being considered as a death incidental case and considering the age of the deceased, we accept the said contention also. M.A.C.A . NO : 238 OF 2005 :3: Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed and respondents are awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,130/- (rounded off to Rs.1,52,000/-) in place of Rs.1,67,300/-. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/