IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 629 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1934/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- DR.J.JAYALALITHA TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NOW KNOWN AS STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TAMILNADU LTD., CHENNAI-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- 1. CHERIAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPIKADU, KOTTAYAM. 2. THRESIAMMA, W/O.CHERIAN, DO. DO. DO. * 3. P.MUTHAIH, S/O.CHINNAYYAPPA THEVER, DOOR NO.11, A.R.ROAD, MADHURAI-16, TAMILNADU. (The name of the 3rd respondent is deleted from party array at the risk of the appellant vide order dated 03/12/2009 in I.A.No.3635/09) ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A No.629 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The owner of a vehicle who has suffered a direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,79,500/- to the parents of a deceased person is the appellant before us. The deceased was a young man aged about 18 years. He had completed his Plus two course. It is asserted that he was a bright student and was appearing for the common entrance examination for professional colleges. He suffered injuries in a motor accident and succumbed to the injuries on the date of the accident itself i.e. 07/07/1996. The tribunal, taking all the relevant circumstances into account, directed payment of an amount of Rs.2,79,500/- as compensation to the parents as per the details given below: 1. Damage to clothing Rs.500/- 2. Transportation charges Rs.1,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- 5. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- M.A.C.A No.629/06 2 6. Loss of dependency Rs.2,56,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 2/3 x 16) Total Rs.2,79,500/- 2. The appellant/owner of the vehicle claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is excess. In these circumstances, it is prayed that a lesser amount of monthly income may be taken into reckoning and the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency may be reduced. This, in short, is the contention. 3. The tribunal had taken Rs.2,000/- as the probable prospective income considering the fact that the deceased had not started earning. The indications available, though convincing data in support of the same had not been produced, suggest that the deceased had completed his Plus Two course and was returning after appearing for his common entrance test for admission to professional colleges. This is borne out by the entries that are available in the undisputed Ext.A4 inquest report. The short question is whether the reckoning of the prospective income at Rs.2,000/- per mensum is justified. M.A.C.A No.629/06 3 4. The court below obviously had drawn inspiration from the fact that in the 2nd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been introduced in the statute book as early as in 1994, even for an unemployed non-earning person Rs.1,250/- has been fixed as the notional monthly income. It cannot be the law that the notional monthly income has to be introduced and imported in every claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. Totality of circumstances will have to be taken into consideration. The deceased had passed Plus Two course and atleast in the assessment of himself and his family, he was good enough to attempt admission in the professional college. A lot of imponderables are there and the computation of the compensation has to be done taking into account all the realities of life. The available inputs suggest to us that the tribunal cannot be found fault with for assuming that the multiplicand can be reckoned at Rs.2,000/-. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the said discretion exercised by the tribunal does not warrant interference by invoking the appellate jurisdiction available to us. 5. We are satisfied that the tribunal has not committed any error in reckoning Rs.2,000/- as the probable monthly M.A.C.A No.629/06 4 income of the deceased. The impugned award does not warrant interference. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that 9% interest has been awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on precedents to suggest that 7.5% shall be an appropriate rate in the present context. We take note of the fact that incident had taken place as early as in 1996. We are not persuaded to agree that the interest awarded by the tribunal demands or warrants a downward reduction. 7. In the result, this M.A.C.A is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A No.629/06 5 M.A.C.A No.629/06 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009