IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 581 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.1228/2006 of II ADDL. M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TALIPARAMBA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SUDHA.K., W/O.SURAJ, 'SOORYA', AYYADATH PARAMBA, EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE-673005. 2. SURAJ, S/O.GOVINDAN, 'SOORYA', AYYADATH PARAMBA, EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE-673005. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R1-2 SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R1-2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2011-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The insurer is the appellant. The insurer challenges the quantum of compensation awarded. It is submitted that before the Tribunal, permission under Sec.170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was taken by the appellant/insurer. 2. The deceased was a young man aged 26 years. He was unmarried at the time of accident i.e., 5/12/2005. It was claimed that he was employed as an Investigator of a Chartered Accountant firm. It was submitted that he was getting an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. Ext.A7 salary certificate was produced. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,27,500/- as shown below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded Details 1 Transport 1000 2 Damage to clothing 500 3 Pain and suffering of victim 10000 4 Funeral Expenses 2000 M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded Details 5 Loss of love and affection 5000 6 Loss of estate 3000 7 Loss of consortium Nil Unmarried 8 Loss of dependency 306000 3000 x 12 x 17/2 9 Medical expenses Nil Nil Total 327500 7% from 12.6.2006 3. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to raise against the impugned award, the learned senior counsel submits that the appellant is aggrieved by the computation of compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Rs.3,000/- was reckoned as monthly income against Ext.A7 salary certificate which showed the monthly income to be Rs.5,500/-. 17 was accepted as multiplier. The Tribunal does not appear to have pointedly considered whether the lower multiplier, when the claimants age is considered, should be taken or the higher multiplier, when the age of the deceased is taken, should be chosen. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, at any rate, the lower multiplier applicable in respect of parents should have been taken into consideration. So reckoned, a multiplier above 13 should not M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2011 -: 3 :- have been taken. In these circumstances it is submitted that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency may accordingly be modified. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the total amount of Rs.3,27,500/- really represents just, fair and reasonable compensation. The claimants are also aggrieved by the lower amount awarded under the head of loss of love and affection, loss of estate, pain and suffering etc. They did not choose to prefer an appeal to challenge the order considering the fact that the total amount awarded, though inadequate can be said to represent just, fair and reasonable compensation. The claimants are really aggrieved that only an amount of Rs.3,000/- has been reckoned as monthly income. They are equally aggrieved that out of such meager income reckoned, one half is deducted as the share exclusively available for personal expenses of the deceased. If the monthly income were realistically reckoned as Rs.4,000/- or even if the contribution is realistically reckoned as 2/3rd of the monthly income, the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency would still be absolutely reasonable. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that, at any rate, M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2011 -: 4 :- the total amount of Rs.3,27,500/- does not warrant interference at all. 5. We have anxiously considered all the relevant inputs. We do agree completely with the learned counsel for the appellant that multiplier in excess of 13 should not have been taken considering the age of the dependents/claimants. But the question is not whether every figure taken by the Tribunal is legally correct or not. This court has to consider whether the total amount of Rs.3,27,500/- awarded as compensation is fair, just and reasonable. We do particularly note that against the salary certificate of Rs.5,500/- produced, only Rs.3,000/- has been reckoned as monthly income. We further note that not the standard deduction under 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased has been taken; but half of the amount has been deducted towards personal expenses. If we take only 1/3rd as the amount to be kept apart for the personal expenses of the deceased from the amount of Rs.3,000/- which alone the Tribunal has chosen to accept, we find that an amount in excess of Rs.3,06,000/- presently awarded under the head of loss of dependency can and should be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. When income is meager, it M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2011 -: 5 :- would be irrational to assume that an unmarried person would arrogate to himself more than 1/3rd for his personal expenses. We do not, in these circumstances, think it necessary to interfere with the impugned award. We make it clear that we choose not to interfere not because we find that 17 as multiplier is correct but because we feel that the total amount of compensation awarded absolutely fair, just and reasonable. 6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge