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 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 142 of 2009(C) ---------------------- OPMV.866/2004 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur dated 07.03.2007 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 -------------- 1. M.ACHUTHAN, S/O. KUNJUNNI MANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. LAKSHMI, W/O. M.ACHUTHAN MANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONERS 3 & 4 --------------- 1. SURESH, S/O. MUNDAN PUZHAMBRATH HOUSE, KUTTIPURAM 679 571 (DRIVER) 2. P.P.HARIDASAN, S/O. MUNDAN PUZHAMBRATH HOUSE, KUTTIPURAM 679 571 (OWNER) 3. ATHE NEW INDIA ASSURANC COMPANY LTD TIRUR. 4. MALLIKA, W/O. LATE SHAJI MANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SHIBIN ANANTHARAJ, MINOR 6 1/2 YEARS, S/O. SHAJI, ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL FOR R4 & 5 SMT.MANJU RAJAN FOR R4 & 5 SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R3 SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY FOR R1-2 SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM) FOR R1-2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.142 of 2009-C ***************************** Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants – parents of the deceased, are the appellants. They along with the wife and minor child of their son had staked claim for compensation for the loss suffered by them consequent to the death of their son who succumbed to injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 25.04.2004. He continued as an inpatient for a period of 16 days before he succumbed to the injuries suffered. At the time when claim petition was filed, all the legal heirs – parents, wife and the child, had all together staked the claim for compensation. The Tribunal found that both parents together (they are aged 66 and 53 years respectively) are entitled only for an amount of Rs.52,000/-. It was held that the claimants together are entitled for a total amount of Rs.6,90,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. The appellants assail the impugned award on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate. Respondents 4 and 5, ie. claimants 3 and 4, also support the appellants on that contention. Between the M.A.C.A No.142 of 2009-C 2 appellants on the one hand and respondents 4 and 5 on the other, it appears that, there is a dispute now about the quantum of compensation which the appellants/parents are entitled to. The appellants claim a larger share in the compensation amount considering their age and extent of dependency. 3. The deceased was a radio mechanic by profession and the Tribunal accepted the case of the appellants that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/-. Ext.A11 certificate was relied on in support of the same and PW2 was examined to prove the same. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.6,90,000/- as compensation as per the details given in para.15 of the impugned award which we extract below: i) Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,500.00 ii) Pain and suffering of the deceased : Rs. 10,000.00 iii) Loss of dependency : Rs.6,23,200.00 (5000 X 12 X 2/3 X 16) iv) Medical bills : Rs. 41,400.00 v) Loss of consortium and love and affection : Rs. 10,000.00 vi) Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,500.00 ----------------------- Total : Rs.6,89,600.00 rounded to : Rs.6,90,000.00 ========= M.A.C.A No.142 of 2009-C 3 4. The learned counsel for the appellants supported by the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the amount awarded under various heads are not adequate or sufficient. They do not represent just and reasonable compensation, it is contended. 5. First of all it is contended that the amounts awarded under the heads of transport to hospital and funeral expenses are totally inadequate. Only an amount of Rs.2,500/- has been awarded under the head of funeral expenses. At any rate, the said amount deserves enhancement, contends the learned counsel. We agree that the amount can be suitably enhanced. Though the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering and medical bills are also challenged, we are of the opinion that just and reasonable compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal under those heads. The amounts awarded under those heads do not warrant upward modification or enhancement. 6. We now come to the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of dependency. The Tribunal, it appears, adopted a strange process of reasoning. According to the Tribunal, the parents could have aspired to get only Rs.533/- per M.A.C.A No.142 of 2009-C 4 mensem as contribution to them. Total monthly contribution was reckoned as Rs.3,333/- only (ie. 5000 X 2/3). Out if this parents were held entitled to Rs.533/- as monthly contribution and the wife and child together were found entitled to Rs.2,800/-. Taking into account the age of the elderly parents, 8 was reckoned as the multiplier and compensation payable to both the appellants/parents was ascertained as Rs.52,000/- on the following calculation. [533 X 12 X 8 = 51,186/- (rounded of to Rs.52,000/-)] 7. The learned counsel for the appellants and respondents 4 and 5 submit that this method adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect. Having accepted Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income, 2/3 of the same must have been held available to all the dependents. After applying the multiplier, the total amount should have been held available to all the dependents together and thereafter the exercise of apportionment should have been undertaken. By adopting this calculation, the entire 2/3 of the income of the deceased is not made available to the legal heirs for the entire period of the admissible multiplier. This is incorrect, contends the learned counsel and we agree. We are satisfied that 2/3 of the income (after deducting 1/3 for the M.A.C.A No.142 of 2009-C 5 personal expenses of the deceased) must be held to be available as contribution for the entire period of the multiplier. We are satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency requires to be modified. 8. Under the head of funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs.2,500/- has been awarded. We are satisfied that Rs.5,000/- deserves to be awarded under that head. 9. The deceased was a person aged 33 years. The 4th respondent is a woman aged 27 years. Under the composite head of loss of consortium and love and affection, only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the Tribunal by strange process of reasoning has not chosen to award reasonable compensation for loss of love and affection suffered by the appellants. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded under the head of loss of consortium and a further amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection for all the claimants. 10. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants and respondents 4 and 5 together are entitled for a total amount of Rs.7,38,900/- as per the details given below. M.A.C.A No.142 of 2009-C 6 i) Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000.00 ii) Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,500.00 iii) Pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000.00 iv) Loss of consortium : Rs. 25,000.00 v) Medical Bills : Rs. 41,400.00 vi) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000.00 vii) Loss of dependency : Rs.6,40,000.00 [(5000 X 12 X 2/3 X 16) ---------------------- Total : Rs.7,38,900.00 ========= That is Rs.48,900/- over and above the amount of Rs.6,90,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. This is grossly inadequate, he contends. We agree. We are satisfied that interest deserves to be awarded @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of realisation. 11. Regarding the disputes relating to apportionment, we are satisfied that the appellants must be held to be entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- each along with interest. The entire balance amount along with interest and cost shall be payable to respondents 4 and 5. M.A.C.A No.142 of 2009-C 7 12. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The claimants together are found entitled to a total amount of Rs.7,38,900/-(Rupees Seven lakhs thirty eight thousand and nine hundred only) as compensation in supersession of the directions in the impugned award; c) We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of deposit/realisation; d) Out of the compensation amount, the appellants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each along with proportionate interest. The same shall forthwith be released to them considering their advanced age; e) Respondents 4 and 5 shall be entitled to the entire balance amount including cost; f) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/