IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1792 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1497/2009 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOZHIKODE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN,S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673018. 2. SHIMNA,D/O.RAVEENDRAN,KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI.P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018. 3. SHIJINA,D/O.RAVEENDRAN,KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI.P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018. 4. PADMINI,W/O.KUTTAYI,KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI.P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No. 1792 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Insurance company is the appellant. Claimants are husband aged 55 years, two daughters aged 20 years and 17 years and mother aged 59 years of one Sathyapraba, a woman aged 42 years who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 19/04/2007 and succumbed to those injuries. The claim was initially staked under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. The deceased was travelling in a vehicle. That was hit by an unidentified vehicle. Wisdom dawned later and claim was staked only under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. Against a total claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2,74,000/- as per the details given in paragraph 8 of the impugned award which we extract below: Compensation claimed under different heads Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount allowed (Rs.) 1. Transport to hospital 2,000/- 1,000/- 2. Damage to clothing & loss of articles 5,000/- 1,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 20,000/- 5,000/- M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 2 Compensation claimed under different heads Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount allowed (Rs.) 4. Loss of consortium 50,000/- 10,000/- 5. Loss of estate Nil 5,000/- 6. Loss of dependency 2,00,000/- 2,52,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 14 x ¾) The other heads as claimed by the petitioner are not allowable. Hence the claim under such heads are not allowed. Total compensation claimed (consolidated compensation) Rs.5,00,000/- Total compensation allowed Rs.2,74,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy four thousand only) 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contends that the tribunal did not follow the table given in clause 1 of the second schedule while ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable. The tribunal, following the dictum in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. P.C.Chacko [2011(3) KHC 438 (DB)] should certainly not have attempted to ascertain the quantum of compensation by employing the multiplier- multiplicand method. Relevant figure must have been M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 3 ascertained directly from the table and not by any independent method of calculation. We are in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though initially a claim was made that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.8,000/- per mensem, while the amendment was carried out, the quantum of monthly income was reduced to Rs.3,000/- per mensem. Thereupon Rs.2,000/- was accepted by the tribunal as the monthly income of the deceased. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased belongs to the age group of 40-45 years. Therefore, horizontal column No.7 applies to her. As found by the tribunal, she was earning an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The relevant entry under column No.11 relating to persons earning above Rs.18,000/- up to Rs.24,000/- and for persons falling under the 7th horizontal column is Rs.3,36,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses as mandated by the note to the table, the claimants would be entitled only to get an amount of Rs.2,24,000/- (Rs.3,36,000/- x 2/3). In addition, only an amount of Rs.9,500/- will be payable: towards funeral M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 4 expenses (Rs.2,000/-), loss of consortium (Rs.5,000/-) and loss of estate (Rs.2,500/-) as stipulated under clause 3. The total compensation cannot exceed Rs.2,33,500/- at any rate, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that computation of compensation under Section 163A must be made by the tribunal by following the table under clause 1 of the second schedule. But, in this case, we note that only Rs.2,000/- has been reckoned as the monthly income. Going by the decision in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2001 SC 3218], even for a non-earning home maker, monthly income can be assumed to be Rs.3,000/- per mensem. It was claimed that the deceased was a self-employed person and a home maker. In these circumstances, we are of the view that Rs.3,000/- can, at any rate, be reckoned as the monthly income. This means that the deceased would rightly fall under vertical column No.12 relating to persons earning income above Rs.24,000/- up to Rs.36,000/-. The actual amount of compensation payable must then be much greater than what has been awarded. We are, in these circumstances, not persuaded M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 5 to admit this appeal as the total quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal does not, at any rate, appear to us to be unjust or unreasonable. It does not appear to us to be in violation of the second schedule to the M.V.Act on the basis of which compensation has to be computed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. 6. In the result, this appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in limini holding that no interference with the impugned award is necessary at the instance of the appellant. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010