IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 200 of 2002(D)
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PAZHASSIVEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN,
... Respondent
2. KUNDHIRIKULATH KARTHIAYANI,
3. KUNDHIRIKULATH MANOHARAN, BROTHER OF
4. ANCHILLATH IQBAL, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
5. A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ, AHAMMED HAJI,MANGAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
M.F.A. No. 200 OF 2002
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the
respondents. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that the
multiplier for awarding compensation should have been based on the
age of the claimants, which was 55 and 51 respectively, counsel for the
respondents submitted that victim was of the age of 26 years, and
therefore the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was correct. While the
appellant’s case is that the multiplier based on the age of the claimants
is 11 under Second Schedule to the Act, we notice that multiplier, if
applied based on the age of the victim, should be 18 as against 15
adopted by the Tribunal. Both sides have cited divergent decisions of
the Supreme Court in support of their contentions. While the decision
cited by counsel for the appellant is reported in BIJOY KUMAR
DUGAR V. BIDVADHAR DUTTA, AIR 2006 SC 1255, the decision
relied on by counsel for the respondents is one reported in NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. V. KALPANA, (2007) 3 SCC 538. In
the latter decision the Supreme Court has adopted multiplier by looking
2
at the age of the victim. A Division Bench of this Court in I.
DAMODARAN V. M.K. VALSALA, (2007) 4 KHC 1044 (DB) also
has awarded compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 by looking at the age of the victim. In this case, it is seen
that the compensation awarded is neither based on the age of the
victim, nor based on the age of the claimants, because as against
multiplier 11 pressed by appellant and 18 claimed by the respondents
the Tribunal has awarded compensation by adopting multiplier 15.
Considering the age of the victim, who was only 26 years of age, we do
not find any justification to interfere with the amount of compensation
awarded. However, we feel the grant of interest at 12% calls for
interference. Accordingly we reduce the interest granted from 12% to
7.5 per cent.
The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(V. K. MOHANAN)
Judge.
kk
3