IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 975 of 2004()
1. SHAHUL HAMEED S/O. MATHEW,
... Petitioner
2. ABITHABEEGAM W/O. SHAHUL HAMEED,
3. HANEEFA S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED,
Vs
1. M/S. VANCHINADU FINANCE LTD.,
... Respondent
2. KORA BABY, PANTHALANGAKUDY HOUSE,
3. BIJU JACOB, PANTHALANGAKUDY HOUSE,
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
5. JACOB JOSEPH, POOVATHUNKAL HOUSE,
6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/11/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
-------------------------------
M.A.C.A.NO.975 OF 2004 (G)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
A 23 year old youngster died in a motor accident on
3.7.1999. His parents and younger brother claimed
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the death. But Tribunal
awarded only Rs.1,32,000/- with interest after finding that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the 3rd respondent
driver of the autorickshaw in which the deceased was
travelling and the autorickshaw was insured by the 4th
respondent Insurance company. Only dispute is regarding the
quantum of compensation.
2. Deceased was 23 years old at the time of
accident. It is contended that if the motor accident victim’s
age is between 20 and 25, a highest multiplier of 18 should be
MACA.975/04 2
taken as held by the Honourable Supreme Court. The
deceased was a bachelor. If the age of the claimants is to be
looked into, father was 49 years and mother was 42 years.
Tribunal has taken 14 as the multiplier, as in the case of death
of an unmarried person, age of the claimants has to be looked
into for fixing multiplier. We see no ground to change the
above. Deceased was a heavy vehicle driver. Ext.A9 is the
driving licence of the deceased. Ext.A1 is the certificate
issued from Anju Transport, Adimaly, which shows that the
deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. But
Tribunal fixed only Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income. Then
only one third of the above was taken for calculating
dependency compensation. He was a heavy duty driver.
Even if Ext.A1 is discarded, it is argued that a heavy vehicle
driver will get atleast Rs.200/- per day and he will get
minimum 20 to 25 days work in a month and hence Rs.2,000/-
fixed as monthly income by the Tribunal is very low.
Considering that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver with
proper licence, we are of the opinion that atleast Rs.3,000/-
ought have been taken as the monthly income, /3 1 rd is to be
deducted
MACA.975/04 3
for personal expenses and thus, Rs.2,000/- is taken as the
monthly income. Hence, compensation payable for loss of
dependency will be Rs.2,000 x 12 x 14 =Rs.3,36,000/-.
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,12,000/-. So, claimants will be
entitled to an additional amount of Rs.2,24,000/- for loss of
family contribution. It is argued that compensation granted
under other heads are very meager but considering the total
amount granted, we are of the opinion that no enhancement is
required under other heads. Hence the additional
compensation will be Rs.2,24,000/- and the above amount
should be deposited by the 4th respondent Insurance company
with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit
over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal and on
deposit of the above amount, appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to
withdraw the same in equal proportion.
Appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
prp