IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 982 of 2004(G) --------------------------------- OPMV.2321/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.PETITIONERS IMPLEADED ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMON P.C, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PUTHUPPARAMPIL HOUSE, PAPPANCHIRA BHAGOM, ITHITHANAM KARA, KURICHI VILLAGE. 2. SASI P.C., S/O.CHELLAPPAN, DO. DO. 3. RAVINDRAN P.C., S/O. DO. DO., DO. DO. 4. SUDHAKARAN, S/O. DO. DO., DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 4&5 ADDL.RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHYAM KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN (DRIVER) SHYAM SADAN, THENGANA BHAGOM, KARA, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, DL.NO.228/KC. 2. R.SALIM KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN, SREE NARAYAN HILL, MADAPPALLY,CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD; BRACH CHANGANACHERRY, POLICY NO.1999-3336. 4. P.B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, MAVELIL NO.20, PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERY. 5. JOTHI, W/O.LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD, DO. DO. R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = MACA.No.982 of 2004. = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are claimants 2 to 5 in OP(MV) No.2321/1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. They are the children of deceased Chellappan who was the original claimant in the petition. The first claimant sustained the following injuries in a motor accident which occurred on July 23, 1999 at 3.00 pm. at Kurichi in Kottayam district:- (i) Lacerated wound on the scalp, on paretal region. (ii) Lacerated wound on the maxilliary region. (iii) Intraverticular haemarrhage. (iv) Fracture dento alveolar bone. 2. The accident happened while he was walking along the side of the road he was knocked down by a car bearing registration No.KL-11/5745 driven by the first MACA.No.982/2004. 2 respondent. Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, the driver of the offending car he filed the OP before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending car remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3, the Insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy. The 4th respondent is the original insured of the offending vehicle who died during the pendency of the OP. The 5th respondent is the widow of the 4th respondent who remained absent before the Tribunal. 4. Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the deceased first claimant died as a result of the injuries sustained due to the accident, that the accident occurred MACA.No.982/2004. 3 due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.65,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.2,000/-. Addl.claimants 2 to 5 have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident happened due to the negligence of the first respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the main question for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. It has also to be considered whether the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident can be sustained. 7. Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died as a MACA.No.982/2004. 4 result of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the Tribunal went wrong in finding that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. We are unable to agree. Pw.2 the doctor who treated the deceased testified that the deceased died as a result of the brain injuries sustained by the deceased. The CT scan of the brain Ext.A13 shows that there was bleeding from the brain. Ext.A13 coupled with the evidence of Pw2 clearly show that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore the claimants are entitled to compensation for the loss caused to them on account of the death of the deceased. 8. The next question for consideration is that the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,000/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Loss of dependency : Rs.50,000.00 Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000.00 Treatment and bystander expenses : Rs. 2,000.00 MACA.No.982/2004. 5 Transportation charges : Rs. 1,000.00 Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000.00 --------------------- Total : Rs.65,000.00 ========= 9. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of compensation for loss of dependency, pain and suffering and on other heads. The Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- per annum was taken as his annual contribution to his family and adopted a multiplier of 5 and awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of dependency. The deceased was aged 63 at the time of his death and was conducting a petty shop earning Rs.6,000/-, according to the claimants. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased would reasonably fixed at Rs.3000/- which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses the balance amount of Rs.24,000/- per annum can be taken as his contribution to MACA.No.982/2004. 6 his family. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 5 which is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for loss of dependency claimants are entiled to a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (24,000 x 5). Thus on this count claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.70,000/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering which appears to be quite inadequate. The accident occurred on July 23, 1999 and the deceased died on April 7, 2001. Therefore, towards pain and suffering we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. In the result, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.80,000/-. They are entitled to interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 3rd respondent being the Insurer of the offending car shall deposit the entire amount MACA.No.982/2004. 7 before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, Judge. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, Judge. Kvs/-