IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 12 of 2005() -------------------- OPMV.1316/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD ................. APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. MUNTHAJ W/O. LATE MUHAMMADALI 9/437, NARIKUTHI, PALAKKAD. 2. SALMA, AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR), DAUGHTER OF LATE MUHAMMEDALI, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN OF 1ST APPELLANT. (1ST PETITIONER IN THE CLAIM PETITION (BALKEES) DIED. PETITIONERS 4 TO 7 LEGAL HEIRS) WERE IMPLEAD AS SUPPLIMENTAL PETITIONERS AND THEY ARE MADE AS RESPONDENTS HEREIN.) BY ADV. SRI.C.RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND SUPPLIMENTAL PETITIONERS 4 TO 7: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHEREETH, S/O. MAYAN, MAYA VEEDU, UPPUMARPADI THEKKE DESOM, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. MUSTHAFA, S/O. BAVA, VALAPPIL VEEDU, FERODE, KOZHIKODE. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. ANIKODE JUNCTION, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 4. KACHAMMA W/O. JAFARALI, KAMBILICHUNGAM HOUSE, NALLEPALLY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 5. JOHARA, W/O. SIRAJUDEEN, CHULLIMADA, KANJIKODE VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 6. SAHEEDA, W/O. MAJEED, METTUPALAYAM ROAD THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. ...2/- MACA.No. 12 of 2005() -2- 7. VAHEEDA W/O. K.A.SIDDIQUE, SHOP NO.183, K.G.STREET, COIMBATORE TALUK, THAMILNADU. R2 BY ADV. SRI. M. AJITH R5 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 12 of 2005 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are claimants 2 and 3 in O.P.(MV) No.1316 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. They are wife and minor daughter of deceased Muhammedali. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated June 30, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,32,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of death of Muhammedali in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on August 2, 1997 at about 8.30 p.m. near a Toddy shop at Kamblichungam while deceased Muhammedali was walking along the side of the road, he was knocked down by a motor cycle bearing registration No.KRC/9832, ridden by the 1st respondent. He sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the hospital on August 4, 1997. Alleging negligence against the 1st MACA 12/2005 2 respondent (rider of the motor cycle), claimants 1 to 3 who are the mother, wife and minor daughter of the deceased filed the Original Petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.6,84,000/-. During the pendency of the petition, the 1st claimant, mother of the deceased, died. Therefore, brothers and sisters of the 1st claimant were impleaded as supplemental claimants 4 to 7. They are shown as respondents 4 to 7 in this appeal. 3. The 1st respondent in the petition, rider of the motor cycle, filed a written statement admitting the accident, but attributed negligence to the deceased. The 2nd respondent, owner of the offending motor cycle, remained absent and he was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending motor cycle, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents in the Original MACA 12/2005 3 Petition. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in the Original Petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,32,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and cost of Rs.1,000/-. The claimants 2 and 3 have come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants 2 and 3 and learned counsel for the Insurance Company 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether claimants 2 and 3/appellants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,32,000/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as MACA 12/2005 4 under:- Pecuniary loss : Rs.3,06,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000/- Loss of estate : Rs. 2,500/- Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000/- Transport to hospital : Rs. 1,500/- Medical expenses : Rs. 2,500/- Loss of consortium : Rs. 7,500/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.3,32,000/- ======== 8. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants 2 and 3 mainly sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of dependency, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs2,250/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, took balance amount of Rs.1,500/- per month as his contribution to his family, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. The Tribunal took the multiplier of 17, as the deceased was aged 32 at the time of his death, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.3.06,000/- towards the loss of dependency. PW1 wife of the deceased testified MACA 12/2005 5 that the deceased was employed in Soudi Arabia and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. PW2 brother of PW1 has supported her. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we feel that monthly income of the deceased can reasonably be fixed at Rs. 3,000/-,which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.24,000/- can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus, for the loss of dependency, appellants/claimants 2 and 3are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 17). Thus, the claimants 2 and 3 are entitled an additional compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- on this count. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,500/- for loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the widow, we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection. Having regard to the age of the widow and MACA 12/2005 6 the minor child, we feel that a compensation of Rs.30,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore,we are not disturbing the same. 12. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,39,500/- with interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to claimants 2 and 3. 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. mn